polymers
Review
A Review on the Physical Parameters Affecting the Bond
Behavior of FRP Bars Embedded in Concrete
Boğaçhan Başaran 1 , İlker Kalkan 2, * , Ahmet Beycioğlu 3 and Izabela Kasprzyk 4
Citation: Başaran, B.; Kalkan, İ.;
Beycioğlu, A.; Kasprzyk, I. A Review
on the Physical Parameters Affecting
the Bond Behavior of FRP Bars
Embedded in Concrete. Polymers
2022, 14, 1796. https://doi.org/
10.3390/polym14091796
Academic Editors: Jose Gonzalo
Carrillo Baeza, Pedro Jesús Herrera
Franco, Pedro Cortés, Eral Bele and
Eliana M. Agaliotis
Received: 30 March 2022
Accepted: 18 April 2022
Published: 28 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091796
1 Department of Construction, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Amasya University,
Amasya 05100, Turkey; bogachan.basaran@amasya.edu.tr
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Kırıkkale University,
Kirikkale 71450, Turkey
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and
Technology University, Adana 01250, Turkey; abeycioglu@atu.edu.tr
4 Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, Bydgoszcz University of Science
and Technology, Al. Prof. S. Kaliskiego 7, 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland; izabela.kasprzyk@pbs.edu.pl
* Correspondence: ilkerkalkan@kku.edu.tr
Abstract: The present study is a detailed literal survey on the bond behavior of FRP (Fiber Reinforced
Polymer) reinforcing bars embedded in concrete. There is an urgent need for the accurate assessment
of the parameters affecting the FRP–concrete bond and quantification of these effects. A significant
majority of the previous studies could not derive precise and comprehensive conclusions on the effects
of each of these parameters. The present study aimed at listing all of the physical parameters affecting
the concrete-FRP bond, presenting the effects of each of these parameters based on the common
opinions of the previous researchers and giving reasonable justifications on these effects. The studies
on each of the parameters are presented in detailed tables. Among all listed parameters, the surface
texture was established to have the most pronounced effect on the FRP–concrete bond strength. The
bond strength values of the bars with coarse sand-coating exceeded the respective values of the
fine sand-coated ones. However, increasing the concrete strength was found to result in a greater
improvement in bond behavior of fine sand-coated bars due to the penetration of concrete particles
into the fine sand-coating layer. The effects of fiber type, bar diameter and concrete compressive
strength on the bar bond strength was shown to primarily originate from the relative slip of fibers
inside the resin of the bar, also known as the shear lag effect.
Keywords: mechanical interlocking; ribbed surface; surface friction; polymer reinforcement; thermal
expansion; wound bar; epoxy resin; bond behavior
1. Introduction
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars have been increasingly used in the field of struc-
tural engineering due to their significant advantages, such as high tensile and fatigue
strengths, high corrosion resistance, lightweight, ease of transportation and handling, ther-
mal and electrical insulating (GFRP only) properties and being unresponsive to magnetic
fields [1–3]. On the contrary, FRP reinforcing bars have certain important disadvantages,
including creep failure, the scarce commercial availability, high production cost, anisotropic
material properties, limited ductility, low modulus of elasticity, intolerance to bending
(for the use as stirrups) and low transverse and lateral strength values as compared to
the longitudinal tensile strength [4–6]. Additionally, the dearth or limited extent of the
provisions in the existing FRP reinforced concrete (RC) codes and regulations constitutes
another limitation for the structural use of FRP bars. Considering the numerous favorable
effects of FRP bars on the service lives of structures, the national economy and the natural
environment, researchers are striving to devise methods to overcome the shortcomings
related to the structural use of FRP bars and promoting their use as concrete reinforcement.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
 bly lower than those of CFRP and AFRP [3,7]. GFRP bars are highly vulner
sion, fatigue and creep [5]. In general, the long-term performances of GFR
the coupled effects of environmental factors (temperature, humidity and
dium) and loading is poor, meaning that the bond degradation of GFRP ba
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 2 of 29
is more pronounced as compared to the other three types. AFRP bars, whi
to have better mechanical properties and long-term performances in compa
GFRP Theand
previousBFRP bars,studies
research are highly
and fieldvulnerable to UV effects
applications concentrated [7–9].
on four Furthermo
different
types of FRP (GFRP, BFRP, CFRP and AFRP) that can
ards and regulations generally do not contain AFRP bars due to the dear be used in the form of concrete
reinforcement. BFRP and GFRP bars are the most preferred types as internal reinforcement
studies
in concreteon these bars.
members owing to their lower prices and ease of supply than the CFRP and
AFRP CFRP
bars. BFRP hasbarsvarious superiorities
have slightly higher modulusover ofthe otherand
elasticity three types,
tensile strength includin
values than GFRP bars, yet the respective values of both BFRP
tensile and fatigue strengths and being the least vulnerable FRP type to e and GFRP are considerably
lower than those of CFRP and AFRP [3,7]. GFRP bars are highly vulnerable to corrosion,
effects
fatigue and(humidity,
creep [5]. Incorrosion
general, theand temperature),
long-term performances fatigue
of GFRPand barscreep
under therupture.
CFRP
coupledalsoeffectshas some majorfactors
of environmental disadvantages, including
(temperature, humidity andthe electric
corrosive conductivi
medium)
vulnerability to electrochemical corrosion when in contact with more
and loading is poor, meaning that the bond degradation of GFRP bars in concrete is metal mat
pronounced as compared to the other three types. AFRP bars, which are known to have
mid
better environment
mechanical properties and and thelong-term
highly performances
brittle nature [3,4]. Recently,
in comparison carbon/glas
with the GFRP
(HFRP) barsare
and BFRP bars, [10,11], which cater
highly vulnerable to UVfor the[7–9].
effects durability needs
Furthermore, thethrough
standards and the use of
regulations
and reduce generally do not contain
the overall AFRP barsthe
cost through due use
to theofdearth
glass of fibers,
research and studies on
platelet re
these bars.
posites
CFRP[12,13]
has various received widespread
superiorities over the otherattention
three types, in the academia
including and practic
the highest tensile
allow the strengths
and fatigue utilization of thetheadvantages
and being least vulnerable of FRP
different
type to FRP materials
environmental in the sam
effects
(humidity,
bar. corrosion and temperature), fatigue and creep rupture. Nevertheless, CFRP also
has some major disadvantages, including the electric conductivity, high price, vulnerability
The bondcorrosion
to electrochemical between when aninFRP
contact bar and
with thematerials
metal surrounding
in a humid concrete
environment is the go
that
and thedetermines the efficiency
highly brittle nature [3,4]. Recently,and suitability
carbon/glass of the
hybrid utilization
FRP (HFRP) of FRP ba
bars [10,11],
which cater for the durability
reinforcement. In flexural needs through
RC members the use of carbon
(slabsfibers
andandbeams),
reduce thethe overall
compres
cost through the use of glass fibers, and platelet reinforced composites [12,13] received
concrete are counterbalanced by the tension forces in the reinforcement a
widespread attention in the academia and practice. HFRP bars allow the utilization of the
opment
advantagesof of these
differenttension forces
FRP materials entails
in the the adequacy
same reinforcing bar. of the reinforcement–c
in the tension zone. The types of bond mechanism ofgoverning
The bond between an FRP bar and the surrounding concrete is the FRP bars factor in conc
that determines the efficiency and suitability of the utilization of FRP bars as concrete rein-
tothose of steel bars, which are the mutual adhesion, surface friction an
forcement. In flexural RC members (slabs and beams), the compression forces in concrete
lock.Nevertheless,
are counterbalanced by the thetension
mechanical
forces in properties
the reinforcementof FRP
and the bars are completely
development of d
these tension
those of steelforces entails
bars the adequacy
(Figure of the reinforcement–concrete
1) [14,15]. Therefore, the flexural bond inbehavior
the tensionof RC m
zone. The types of bond mechanism of FRP bars in concrete are similar to those of steel
steel reinforcement cannot serve as a basis for the evaluation of flexural be
bars, which are the mutual adhesion, surface friction and shear interlock. Nevertheless,
RC members.
the mechanical Characterization
properties of FRP bars are ofcompletely
the FRP–concrete
different frombond those of is steel
the bars
prevailing
(Figure 1) [14,15]. Therefore, the flexural behavior of RC
termining the ductility, bending capacity and energy absorption capacity members with steel reinforcement
cannot serve as a basis for the evaluation of flexural behavior of FRP RC members. Charac-
RC members [16,17]. The present study is a rather detailed summary on al
terization of the FRP–concrete bond is the prevailing factor in determining the ductility,
ous studies
bending capacity inand
theenergy
literature on the
absorption keyvalues
capacity factors affecting
of FRP RC members the [16,17].
bond behavior
The
present
concrete.study is a rather detailed summary on all of the previous studies in the literature
on the key factors affecting the bond behavior of FRP bars in concrete.

Figure 1. Bond mechanism of FRP bars (modified from [15]).

Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 3 of 29

2. Aims and Scope

In the literature, numerous experimental, analytical and numerical studies were con-
ducted on identifying the prominent factors affecting the concrete-FRP bond; nevertheless,
a great majority of these studies concentrated on monitoring the influence of only one or a
few of all parameters. In the current study, on the contrary, all main parameters affecting
the bond strength of FRP bars in concrete were investigated by conducting an extended
literature survey. This survey indicated that there is consensus among the researchers
on the effects of certain parameters on the FRP–concrete bond, while the effects of the
other parameters have not been clearly unveiled yet. There is a variety of opinions on the
effects of these parameters. The present literature review introduces the parameters one
by one together with the findings of the previous researchers on this parameter. Besides,
the related provisions from the structural FRP RC codes are also discussed throughout the
manuscript. Accordingly, the main goal of the present study is to present the recent devel-
opments and challenges related to the utilization of FRP bars in concrete by underscoring
the most influential factors affecting the FRP–concrete bond based on the previous works
on this topic.
There are a total of 10 main parameters affecting the FRP–concrete bond. These
parameters can be listed under four headings, which are (i) the inherent properties of FRP
rebars; (ii) the arrangement and configuration of reinforcement; (iii) the inherent properties
of concrete; and (iv) the method of testing. The complete list of parameters is as follows:
• Inherent properties of FRP
1. Bar Diameter (d);
2. Fiber Type and Modulus of Elasticity;
3. Surface texture of the rebar.
• Reinforcement Arrangement and Configuration
1. Concrete cover (C) and bar spacing (sc );
2. Development (ld ) or embedment length (le );
3. Reinforcement position in the member;
4. The presence of transverse reinforcement.
• Inherent properties of concrete
1. Compressive strength (fc );
2. The presence and percentage of fibers;
3. The type of concrete.
A detailed section is devoted to each one of these parameters in the following discus-
sion. A detailed table, which compiles the tests and studies used in that section, is given in
each section to avoid any confusion and to clearly reveal the effects of each parameter on
the FRP–concrete bond. The entire table of each section was discussed and debated in its
entirety with additional comments of the authors.
The previous researchers did not reach an agreement on the denominations of the
surface textures of FRP bars. In other words, the same surface type was termed differently
by different researchers. This discrepancy caused significant confusion among researchers.
To avoid confusion in the present review, each table contains two columns for the bar
surface notations. The first column corresponds to the original notations in the source
papers, while the second one refers to the notations suggested and used in the present text.
The bar surface notations of the present review are given in Section 3.1.3 in detail for the
sake of clarity.
The graphs and test results in the majority of the previous studies cannot provide
credential comments on the effects of a certain test parameter on bond strength. The
previous experimental studies do not possess the merit of focusing on a single parameter
by isolating the related experiments from the remaining test parameters. Consequently,
the experiments, which are intended to unfold the effects of a certain parameter on bond
strength, include the coupled effects of numerous parameters. Moreover, the average values
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 4 of 29

of the test results were adopted in the previous works when explicating the scatter plots.
However, the values in these plots are scattered in a broad range and reliable and precise
results may not be inferred by using the average values. Unlike the other review studies,
the coupling of effects of different parameters were taken into account in the present text
and the findings were elaborated by avoiding controversial arguments.
In this study, as much data as possible was compiled from the literature to prepare
tables from which clear and accurate conclusions on the effects of a single parameter could
be reached. In this way, the effects of the remaining parameters on the FRP–concrete bond
were minimized, if not completely eliminated. Furthermore, each finding or conclusion
was justified with sufficient reasoning. The authors did not utilize scatter graphs or curves.
Furthermore, the authors avoided using precise statements on certain parameters due to
significant discrepancies between the related experiments in the literature. The ambiguous
and even sometimes opposing findings in different studies complicates to draw definitive
conclusions on these parameters. These discrepancies have been completely ignored in
the previous statistical review studies. The present paper leaves it to the readers on these
parameters instead of deriving conclusions from the controversial data. Only obvious and
well-explained conclusions were drawn according to the existing test results, presented in
tables in each section. In the present study, the dependent and independent (bond strength)
variables needed to be presented in the table format rather than conducting an analysis
and presenting them in a mathematical form for three main reasons:
1. The effect of a single parameter (dependent variable) on the independent variable (the
FRP–concrete bond strength in this case) can only be unfolded if all other dependent
variables are kept fixed in the related experiments. Otherwise, the coupling between
the effects of several parameters will not allow the researchers to isolate of the effect
of a single parameter and set a relationship between the examined dependent variable
and the independent variable. In the context of investigating the effects of the FRP
material type on the FRP–concrete bond strength, for instance, the surface texture,
diameter, clear cover and distance from the adjacent bar of the tested bars need to be
kept identical in the related experiments as well as the concrete grade, concrete type
and fiber content of the concrete mixture. In that respect, the existing experiments in
the literature do not suffice for the development of specific relations between each
test parameter and the FRP–concrete bond strength.
2. The test data on FRP–concrete bond strength is extremely scattered. The wide dis-
persion of this data mainly stems from the coupling between the effects of several
parameters in the previous experimental studies, which were designed without pay-
ing attention to all parameters affecting the FRP–concrete bond. The mathematical
analyses on the data with such a dispersion do not generate meaningful and accurate
expressions, since the deviation of the actual data from the mathematical curve re-
mains high, meaning that the mathematical curve does not accurately represent the
experimental data.
3. The surface texture types of FRP bars have not been standardized with regulations,
standards and previous experimental studies. For instance, the rib dimensions of the
ribbed FRP bars and the grain sizes of the coating layer in the sand-coated bars are
rather different in different studies. Hence, the surface type with the same notation
can be excessively different in the related tests, which exacerbates the broad scatter of
the test data and even results in opposing test data in different experimental studies.
The authors could not make separate analyses on each type of FRP bars (CFRP, GFRP,
BFRP and AFRP) in each section due to the absence of an adequate number of studies in
the literature. For instance, the number of studies on CFRP and AFRP reinforcing bars is so
limited that conducting separate analysis and reaching specific conclusions on these two
types is not possible at all. Strictly speaking, the majority of the studies in the literature
pertain to the bond behavior of GFRP and BFRP reinforcing bars in concrete. Consequently,
the authors tried to reach general conclusions on the effects of each parameter on the
FRP–concrete bond without diving into special comments on different FRP types. The
 forcing bars in concrete. The FRP–concrete interfacial bond strength is sub
dation due to environmental factors, including but not limited to the tem
rosive environments and humidity. Furthermore, long-term effects, includ
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 fatigue, are also responsible for the changes in the adherence of FRP
5 of 29bars to
long-term bonding performances of FRP bars and the durability issues are
covered in a companion paper.
findings from a single type of FRP were not generalized to all types, but only the common
conclusions on all FRP types were given in the manuscript.
3. Physical
The presentParameters
pertains solelyAffecting the bonding
to the short-term FRP–Concrete
performancesBond
of FRPBehavior
reinforcing
bars in concrete. The FRP–concrete interfacial
3.1. Inherent Properties of FRP Materials bond strength is subject to degradation
due to environmental factors, including but not limited to the temperature, corrosive
3.1.1. Bar Diameter
environments and humidity. Furthermore, long-term effects, including creep and fatigue,
are also responsible for the changes in the adherence of FRP bars to concrete. The long-term
Significant effort has been spent in the literature to determine the effe
bonding performances of FRP bars and the durability issues are planned to be covered in a
diameter on bond strength. There are three basic opinions on the influence
companion paper.
eter on bond strength. The first of these opinions relies on the concept of th
3. Physical Parameters Affecting the FRP–Concrete Bond Behavior
between
3.1. Inherentthe coreofand
Properties FRP the fibers on the outer surface (shear lag effect) resu
Materials
low
3.1.1. slip resistance within the epoxy resin and at the epoxy–fiber interface
Bar Diameter
tionSignificant
of axial effort
tension forces
has been spent[18–21] (Figure
in the literature 2). As the
to determine the second view,
effects of FRP bar a grea
diameter on bond strength. There are three basic opinions
water is assumed to accumulate underneath the FRP bar with increasingon the influence of bar diameter
on bond strength. The first of these opinions relies on the concept of the relative slip between
The
the coreincreasing
and the fibersamount of water
on the outer surface causes
(shear lagthe total
effect) volume
resulting from ofthe gaps
low slipin the m
crease,
resistancewhich in epoxy
within the turn resin
will and
reduce
at thethe FRP–concrete
epoxy–fiber bondthestrength
interface under [22–24]. T
action of axial
tension forces [18–21] (Figure 2). As the second view, a greater amount
related to the Poisson’s effect. With increasing bar diameter, the Poisson’s e of water is assumed
to accumulate underneath the FRP bar with increasing bar diameter. The increasing amount
and
of waterthecauses
larger thedecrease
total volume inofthegapsbar volume
in the mixturedue to thiswhich
to increase, effectinisturn assumed
will to
reductions in the mechanical
reduce the FRP–concrete bond strengthinterlocking
[22–24]. The lastandviewfriction
is relatedforces on the bar s
to the Poisson’s
effect. With increasing bar diameter, the Poisson’s effect increases
Table 1 presents the statistical, review and research studies on the effects and the larger decrease in o
the bar volume due to this effect is assumed to cause greater reductions in the mechanical
on the FRP–concrete
interlocking bond.
and friction forces This
on the bartable
surfaceclearly
[21,25]. depicts that the
Table 1 presents the degree
statistical,of this
wide
review range. Even
and research in studies
studies withofidentical
on the effects bar diameter surface texture, concrete
on the FRP–concrete bond. This compre
table clearly depicts that the degree of this effect covers a wide
and embedment length, significant differences were reported on the degre range. Even in studies with
identical surface texture, concrete compressive strength and embedment length, significant
of bar diameter
differences on bond
were reported on thestrength.
degree of influence of bar diameter on bond strength.

Figure Shear
Figure 2. 2. lag effect
Shear (modified
lag effect from [19,21]).
(modified from [19,21]).
In this respect, the main reason for the differences between the findings of different
In this
researchers are respect,
expected tothe
be amain
result reason forlag
of the shear the differences
effect. between
Several inherent the findin
properties
of an FRP bar, including the fiber density, resin type, resin density and
researchers are expected to be a result of the shear lag effect. Several inher the mechanical
properties of the constituents, were found to impinge on the shear lag effect. The degree of
of
thisan FRP
effect also bar, including
changes the fiber density,
with the manufacturing conditionsresin type,
of the bar and resin density
the persistence of and th
properties of Hence,
these conditions. the constituents,
the effects of barwere found
diameter to impinge
on bond strength canon the
only shear lag effe
be identified
by considering all these variables.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 6 of 29

Table 1. Studies on the influence of bar diameter on FRP–concrete bond strength.

Concrete
Embedment Surface Type Fiber dfirst 1 dsec 2 Change in Bond
Ref. Type and
Length and Rib Dimensions Type (mm) (mm) Stress (%)
Strength
NC 3
[26] 5d SC 4 (HW + SCf) Glass 13 19 +15
35 MPa
SCC
[18] 80 mm T (HW) Basalt 12 20 −16
54 MPa
NC
[27] 5d Thread In + SC (HW + SCf) Glass 14 16 −59
35 MPa
NC Spirally wound (HW or R)
[27] 5d Glass 14 16 −28
35 MPa rh 5 = 0.50 mm; rs 6 = 8.60 mm
NC
[28] 6d SC (SCc) Glass 10 13 +29
28 MPa
NC
[28] 6d B + SC (B + SCf) Aramid 9 15 +38
28 MPa
R (HW or R)
CAC
[29] 5d rh = 0.26–0.28 mm; Basalt 8 12 −6
~27 Mpa
rs = 8.02–8.70 mm
Deep rib (HW or R)
CAC-S
[30] 5d rh = 0.56–0.45 mm; Carbon 8 12 −7
~30 MPa
rs = 11.00–10.00 mm
Deep rib (HW or R)
CAC-S
[30] 5d rh = 0.56–0.60 mm; Basalt 8 12 −8
~30 MPa
rs = 8.50–11.00 mm
RAC 8 10 +29
[31] 5d HW (HW or R) Basalt
35 MPa 10 12 −23
NC
[32] 5d SC (SCf) Basalt 8 12 −1
33 MPa
ECC R (HW or R) 12 16 −11
[33] 100 mm Glass
Cu 7 31 MPa rh = 1.20 mm; rs = 9.4–10.2 mm 16 20 −8
NC 10 14 −8
[34] 5d HW (HW or R) Basalt
Cu 44 MPa 14 20 −24
NC 6 8 −3
[35] 10d Fine SC (SCf) Carbon
Cu 36 MPa 8 12 −25
NC
[35] 10d Wound (In) Glass 8 12 −11
Cu 36 MPa
NC 6 8 +15
[35] 10d R (HW or R) Glass
Cu 36 MPa 8 12 −29
NC 6 8 +35
[36] 5d HW + SC (HW + SCm) Glass
35 MPa 8 12 −26
NC 6 8 +2
[36] 5d Coarse SC (SCc) Basalt
35 MPa 8 12 −22
NC 6 8 +4
[36] 5d Fine SC (SCf) Basalt
66 MPa 8 12 −24
[37] Soft computing techniques and statistical Decrease
[24] Review Not clear
[38] Review Decrease
1 2 3
the bar diameter in the first test; the bar diameter in the subsequent test; Concrete type notations are given in
Section 3.3.3; 4 surface texture notations are given in Section 3.1.3; 5 rib height; 6 rib spacing; 7 cubic.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 7 of 29

3.1.2. Fiber Type and Modulus of Elasticity

The literature contains a lot of studies on the influence of fiber type (Aramid, Basalt,
Carbon and Glass) on FRP–concrete bond strength. The statistical, review and research
studies on this very topic are presented in Table 2. The generality of these studies pertains to
the bond behavior of FRP bars (Figure 6) and comparison of this behavior to the respective
behavior of the reference deformed steel rebars. As a matter of fact, Table 2 tabulates the
comparison of the bond strength values of different types of FRP bars with each other and
with proper ribbed steel bars. The table showcases that the bond strength values of GFRP
bars (except the smooth ones) vary in the range of 0.45–1.07, BFRP bars in the range of
0.36–1.46, and CFRP bars in the range of 0.60–1.35 times the respective strength values of
the comparable ribbed steel bars. This comparison does not embrace the AFRP bars due to
dearth of studies on these bars. Independent from the fiber type, the bond strength values
can be observed to vary in a broad range, most probably due to the non-uniformity of
the surface textures of the bars in these studies. The same comparison is also elaborated
in Section 3.1.3, since the surface texture of the bar is much more influential on the bond
strength than the other parameters.
In order to determine the effect of fiber properties on bond strength, Table 2 also
compares the test results of the bars with identical bar diameter, surface texture and test
conditions but with different fiber type. This comparison indicates that the bond strength
values of CFRP bars range between 0.92 and 2.83 times the respective values of the GFRP
bars, while the bond strengths of BFRP bars lie in the range of 1.29–1.88 times the strength
values of their GFRP counterparts. The bond strength values of the CFRP bars, on the other
hand, remain in the interval of 0.71–1.51 times those of the BFRP counterparts. Finally, the
related strength values of CFRP rebars change from 1.16 to 1.69 times the bond strength
values of the AFRP rebars with identical features.
The only clear outcome from this comparison is that the GFRP bars is the least favorable
polymer bars in terms of adherence with concrete among the four types of FRP. However,
reaching a crystal-clear conclusion about the contribution of AFRP, BFRP and CFRP fibers
to the adherence with concrete is impossible to reach based on the available test results.
The improved bonding properties of CFRP, BFRP and AFRP bars originate from two main
reasons. The first reason is the shear lag effect, just like the related discussion on the effect
of bar diameter. The shear lag effect is lower in FRP bars with resin and fibers strong in
tension as compared to those with resin and fibers weak in tension. Considering that AFRP,
BFRP and CFRP bars generally possess higher tensile stiffness values in comparison to
the GFRP rebars [42,43], the probable shear lag in GFRP bars might have resulted in the
reduced bond strength values in concrete. Secondly, the transfer of internal forces from the
surrounding concrete to the rebar generates heat at the concrete–bar interface due to friction
and mechanical interlocking. Additionally, the internal tensile stresses in the bar also heat
up the rebar. This extra heat causes softening of the thermoset resin, which has low thermal
resistance, on the bar surface. The friction-induced force transferring ability of the resin
layer, which consists the outer surface of the rebar and is contact with the surrounding
concrete, is reduced and the slip of the bar is facilitated by this heat. The radial thermal
expansion coefficients of the aramid and carbon fibers is about three to five times higher
than that of glass fibers. Hence, the increase in the radial pressure from this additional heat
in AFRP and CFRP bars exceed the related increase in the GFRP bars [5,42]. Accordingly,
the adherence to concrete, closely related to the radial pressure in the bar, is higher in AFRP
and CFRP bars.

Table 2. Studies on the influence of fiber type on FRP–concrete bond strength.

Concrete Type, Embedment Surface Type, d

Ref. Fiber Type τ CF 2 /τ 1 τ/τ Steel 3
Concrete Grade Length Rib Dimensions (mm)
NC
[26] 5d SC (HW + SCf) Glass 13 − 0.78
35 MPa
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 8 of 29

Table 2. Cont.

Concrete Type, Embedment Surface Type, d

Ref. Fiber Type τ CF 2 /τ 1 τ/τ Steel 3
Concrete Grade Length Rib Dimensions (mm)
NC
[26] 5d SC (HW + SCf) Glass 19 − 0.72
35 MPa
SCC
[18] 80 mm T (HW) Basalt 12 − 0.69
54 MPa
SCC
[18] 80 mm HW + SC (HW + SCf) Glass 12 − 0.48
54 MPa
NC
[28] 6d S (S) Glass 12 − 0.18
28 MPa
NC
[28] 6d SC (SCc) Glass 12 − 1.07
28 MPa
NC
[28] 6d S (HW) Carbon 10 − 0.60
28 MPa
NC
[28] 6d SC (HW + SCf) Carbon 10 − 0.70
28 MPa
Deep rib (HW or R)
CAC-S
[30] 6d rh 4 = 0.56 mm; Carbon 8 Basalt − 1.08 1.35
~30 MPa
rs 5 = 11.00 mm
CAC-S Shallow rib (HW)
[30] 6d Carbon 8 − 0.90
~30 MPa rh = 0.20 mm; rs = 11.00 mm
CAC-S Deep rib (HW or R)
[30] 6d Basalt 8 Carbon − 0.92 1.46
~30 MPa rh = 0.56 mm; rs = 8.50 mm
CAC-S Deep rib (HW or R)
[30] 6d Carbon 12 − 1.02
~30 MPa rh = 0.45 mm; rs = 10.00 mm
CAC-S Deep rib (HW or R)
[30] 6d Basalt 12 − 1.09
~30 MPa rh = 0.60 mm; rs = 11.00 mm
NC 10 Basalt − 1.88
[32] 5d HW (HW) Glass −
33 MPa 10 Carbon − 2.83
ECC R (HW)
[33] 100 mm Carbon 16 − 0.64
Cu 6 31 MPa rh = 0.20 mm; rs = 10.50 mm
ECC R (R)
[43] 100 mm Glass 16 − 1.05
Cu 31 MPa rh = 1.20 mm; rs = 9.70 mm
SCGC
[44] 5d Spiral-wound (HW or R) Basalt 10 − 0.72
40 MPa
NC Spiral ribs (HW or R)
[45] 5d Basalt 12 − 0.39
50 MPa rh = 0.45 mm
NC Spiral ribs + SC (HW + SCf)
[45] 5d Glass 13 − 0.51
50 MPa rh = 0.21 mm
NC
[46] 20d SC (SCc) Glass 16 − 0.69
~40 MPa
6 Carbon − 0.88
NC
[35] 10d Fine SC (SCf) Glass 8 Carbon − 1.51 −
(Cu) 36 MPa
12 Carbon − 1.43
6 Carbon − 1.69 −
NC
[47] 5d HW + SC (HW + SCf) Aramid 8 Carbon − 1.34 −
35 MPa
10 Carbon − 1.16 0.68
NC R (R)
[48] 5d Glass 10 − 0.45
~45 MPa rh = 0.71 mm
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 9 of 29

Table 2. Cont.

Concrete Type, Embedment Surface Type, d

Ref. Fiber Type τ CF 2 /τ 1 τ/τ Steel 3
Concrete Grade Length Rib Dimensions (mm)
[49] Artificial neural network and statistical No effect
Basalt − 1.29
[25] Review Glass − −
Carbon − 0.92
1 the bond strength of test bar; 2 the bond strength of another comparable FRP bar; 3 the bond strength of the
reference steel bar; 4 rib height; 5 rib spacing; 6 cubic.

In the literature, a limited number of studies have been conducted on the effect of
the modulus of elasticity of FRP on the concrete–FRP bond. Although various views
on the effect of the change in the modulus of elasticity on adherence are presented in
the literature [50–54], only a minority of these studies has the merit of directly focusing
on the effect of the elastic modulus by fixing the other test parameters in the related
experiments [25,55,56]. These studies unfolded that the sand-coated GFRP bars with high
modulus of elasticity (HM) have lower bond strength values than the GFRP bars with
low modulus of elasticity (LM). This unexpected outcome was attributed to the fact that
the sand-coated surface layer was stripped from the rebar earlier in HM GFRP bars. This
outcome invalidates the first of the two abovementioned explanations on the improved
bonding properties of AFRP, BFRP and CFRP bars (the effect of shear lag) and even validates
the reverse of this explanation. GFRP has the lowest elastic modulus among the four FRP
types. The effect of elastic modulus on bond strength partially confirms the latter of the
abovementioned explanations (the effect of heat on bond). The FRP bars with higher
stiffness can absorb more energy when undergoing the same elongation as those with low
axial stiffness. Hence, the bars with higher stiffness are expected to heat up more, causing
the premature peeling of the sand-coating layer. This early peeling might exacerbate the
concrete-FRP bond. In a related study in the literature, Arias et al. [57] reported that
the FRP bars with matrix of higher strength exhibited improved bonding performance
with concrete.

3.1.3. Surface Texture (Surface Characteristic) of the Rebar

A good number of research studies in the literature are devoted to the influence of
surface texture on concrete–FRP bar bond strength. Statistical, review and research studies
on this topic are summarized in Table 3, which showcases an abundant number of surface
types for FRP bars. Unlike the steel rebars, there exists no specifications or standards on
the types and limitations of surface textures of FRP bars. The surface textures (finishes)
of FRP bars are highly dependent on the preparation techniques and production process
parameters of the manufactures due to the lack dimensional and material limitations in
the related international and national standards. Identifying and comparing the effects of
different surface types on the bond strength is cumbersome to achieve by also isolating
this parameter from other test parameters. Even the same term can be observed to refer to
completely different surface textures in different studies. Furthermore, there can be vast
differences between the quality, grain size and density of the coating in sand-coated bar
and the thickness, height and spacing of the ribs in the deformed and helically wound bars
of different studies. For this reason, the comparison of the effects of reinforcement surface
deformations on adherence cannot be put forward in clear terms. Nonetheless, a verbal
and basic comparison was tried to be realized in the present review. In the discussions
and comparison, the surface types were standardized (Figures 3 and 4) according to the
notations of Solyom and Balázs [58].
Accordingly,
• R1 and R2 is the fine sand-coating (SCf).
• R3 and R4 shows the coarse sand-coating (SCr).
• R5 is the standard sand-coating (SC).
• R6 illustrates the helically wrapped (HW) surface.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 10 of 29

• R7, R8 and R9 are the helically wrapped and sand-coated surface (HWSC).
• R10 shows the indented (In) surface.
• R11, R12 and R13 correspond to the ribbed (Rb) surface.

Table 3. Studies on the influence of surface type on FRP–concrete bond strength.

First Surface Second Surface Chan.

Concrete Type Develo. Fiber d
Ref. Type 1 and Type 2 and in τ 3
and Strength Length Type (mm)
Ribs Dimensions Rib Dimensions (%)
NC Spirally wound (HW or R)
[27] 5d SC (HW + SCf) Glass 14 +46
~30 MPa rh 4 = 0.50 mm; rs 5 = 8.60 mm
NC Deep thread In (HW or R)
[27] 5d SC (HW + SCf) Glass 14 +32
~30 MPa rh = 0.80 mm; rs = 10.00 mm
NC
[28] 6d S (S) SC (SCc) Glass 13 +506
28 MPa
NC
[28] 6d S (HW) SC (HW + SCf) Carbon 10 +16
28 MPa
Shallow rib (HW)
CAC-S Deep rib (HW or R)
[30] 5d rh = 0.20 mm; Carbon 8 +51
~30 MPa rh = 0.56 mm; rs = 11.00 mm
rs = 11.00 mm
RAC HW (HW or R)
[31] 5d SC (SCf) Basalt 10 +96
35 MPa rs = 9.60 mm
RAC 5d Screw thread (R)
[31] SC (SCf) Basalt 10 +78
35 MPa rs = 5.00 mm
RAC 5d HW + SC (HW + SCf)
[31] SC (SCf) Basalt 10 +42
35 MPa rs = 14.00 mm
NC
[32] 5d SC (SCf) HW (HW or R) Basalt 10 +70
33 MPa
NC
[32] 5d SC (SCf) Screw thread (R) Basalt 10 +69
33 MPa
NC
[32] 5d SC (SCf) HW + SC (HW or R + SCf) Basalt 10 +13
33 MPa
NC
[59] 5d S (HW) HW + SC (HW + SCf) Glass 15 +7
30 MPa
NC
[59] 5d S (HW) HW (R) Glass 15 +29
30 MPa
R (HW or R)
NC R (HW or R)
[60] 5d rh = 0.50 mm; Glass 16 +55
40 MPa rh = 1.50 mm; rs = 18.00 mm
rs = 18.00 mm
R (HW or R)
NC R (HW or R)
[60] 5d rh = 0.50 mm; Glass 16 +7
40 MPa rh = 0.50 mm; rs = 27.00 mm
rs = 18.00 mm
NC 8 +21
[36] 5d Fine SC (SCf) Coarse SC (SCf) Basalt
35 MPa 12 +26
NC
[36] 5d Fine SC (SCf) Coarse SC (SCf) Glass 6 +34
35 MPa
HW + SC (HW + SCm)
NC R (R)
[36] 5d rh = 0.53 mm; Glass 12 +12
35 MPa rh = 0.46 mm; rs = 5.90 mm
rs = 23.10 mm
In (In)
NC R (R)
[36] 5d rh = 0.74 mm; Glass 12 +24
35 MPa rh = 0.46 mm; rs = 5.90 mm
rs = 8.74 mm
Polymers 2022, 14, x 10 of 31

the effect of the change in the modulus of elasticity on adherence are presented in the
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 literature [50–54], only a minority of these studies has the merit of directly focusing 11 ofon
29
the effect of the elastic modulus by fixing the other test parameters in the related exper-
iments [25,55,56]. These studies unfolded that the sand-coated GFRP bars with high
modulus of elasticity (HM) have lower bond strength values than the GFRP bars with
Table 3. Cont.
low modulus of elasticity (LM). This unexpected outcome was attributed to the fact that
the sand-coated surface layer was Second
First Surface stripped from the rebar earlier in HM GFRP bars.
Surface Chan.This
Concrete Type Develo.
outcome invalidates Fiber d
Ref. Type and the first of the Type
1 two abovementioned
2 and explanations on the improved
in τ 3
and Strength Length Type (mm)
bonding properties
Ribs Dimensionsof AFRP, BFRPRiband CFRP bars (the effect of shear lag) and even
Dimensions (%) val-
NC idates the reverse of this explanation. GFRP has the lowest elastic modulus among the
[35] 10d Fine SC (SCf) Wound (Grooves) Glass 12 +66
Cu 6 36 MPa four FRP types. The effect of elastic modulus on bond strength partially confirms the
NC latter of the abovementioned explanations (the effect of heat on bond). The FRP bars with
[35] 10dhigher stiffness
Fine SC can
(SCf)absorb more energy
R (HWwhen or R) undergoingGlass 12
the same elongation +75
as those
Cu 36 MPa
NC with low axial stiffness. Hence, the bars with higher stiffness are expected 9 to heat up
+16
[57] 5d more, causing
Fine SCthe
(SCf) Coarse
premature peeling SC (SCs)
of the Glass This early peeling might
sand-coating layer.
23 MPa 16 +9
exacerbate the concrete-FRP bond. In a related study in the literature, Arias et al. [57]
NC Grooved (In)
[61] 5d reported Fine
thatSCthe(SCf)
FRP bars with matrix higher strengthGlass
of mm exhibited 14 −4
improved bonding
53 MPa rs = 9.00
performance with concrete.
NC Fine SC HW, SC (HW + SCf)
[61] 5d Glass 14 +8
53 MPa (SCf) rh = 0.47 mm; rs = 21.66 mm
3.1.3. Surface Texture (Surface Characteristic) of the Rebar
NC Grooved (In) HW (HW)
[61] 5d A good number Glass
devoted17 +32
57−47 MPa rs = 9.00 mm of research studies
rh = 0.84 in =the
mm; rs literature
16.13 mm are to the influence of
surface texture on concrete–FRP bar bond strength. Statistical, review and research
R (R)
[62]
NC
4d
studies on this topic are summarized in
rh = 0.60 mm;
Table 3, which showcases
R (R)
Glass
an12abundant −number19
29 MPa of surface types for FRP rh =Unlike
bars. 0.60 mm; rs steel
the = 24.00rebars,
mm there exists no specifications or
rs = 12.00 mm
standards on the types and limitations of surface textures of FRP bars. The surface tex-
R (R)
NC R (R)
[62] 4d tures (finishes)
rh = 0.36of mm;FRP bars are highly dependent on the preparation
Glass 12 techniques +61 and
29 MPa production process parametersrh = 0.72
of mm;manufactures
the rs = 12.00 mm due to the lack dimensional and
rs = 12.00 mm
material limitations
R (R)
in the related international and national standards. Identifying and
NC R (R)
[62] 4d comparing rh =the effects
0.60 mm; of different surface types on the bond strength10is cumbersome
Glass −24 to
29 MPa achieve by rh = 0.60 mm; rs = 30.00 mm
rs =also
10.00isolating
mm this parameter from other test parameters. Even the same term
SFRSCC can be observed to refer to completely Grooveddifferent
(In) surface textures in different studies.
[42] 5d Furthermore, Fine SC (SCf)
there can be vast differences between Glass grain
the quality, 12–13 −12 of
size and density
61 MPa rh = 0.78 mm; rs = 8.50 mm
the coating in sand-coated bar and the thickness, height and spacing of the ribs in the
Helical lugged > Spiral-wrapped
[37] Soft computing
deformedtechniques
and helicallyand statistical
wound bars studyof different studies. For this reason, the comparison
> Sand-coated
of the effects of reinforcement surface deformations on adherence cannot be put forward
[49] Artificial neural network and statistical study No effect reported
in clear terms. Nonetheless, a verbal and basic comparison was tried to be realized in the
[24] present review.ReviewInstudy
the discussions and comparison, the surfaceDS~ DS +
types SC >standardized
were SC > S
1 surface of the reference bar; 2 surface of the compared bar; 3 the bond strength; 4 rib height; 5 rib spacing; 6 cubic.
(Figures 4 and 5) according to the notations of Solyom and Balázs [58].

Figure 3.
Figure 4. Surface
Surface deformation shapes of
deformation shapes of FRP
FRP rebars
rebars [58].
[58].

As shown in Table 3, the bond strength values of smooth bars remain well below the
respective values of the bars with other surface types. In normal-strength concrete, the
bond strength values of the bars with coarse sand-coating exceed the respective values
of the fine sand-coated ones. In the presence of fine coating, the forces are transferred
through only surface friction, while both mechanical interlocking and surface friction
play role in the force transfer in the presence of coarse sand-coating. The change in the
transfer mechanism can be held responsible for the improved bond behavior of the coarse
 Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 12 of 29

Polymers 2022, 14, x
sand-coated bars. As another important finding, the improvement of the bond behavior
with the use of high-strength concrete in replacement for the normal-strength concrete is
much more emphasized in the fine sand-coated bars when compared to the coarse sand-
coated ones. High-strength concrete mixtures have better compaction and they contain less
pores. The better compaction provides better penetration of concrete particles into the fine
coating layer.

Figure 4. FRP bar rib height and spacing (modified from [36]).
Figure 5. FRP bar rib height and spacing (modified from [36]).
Hence, the adherence behavior alters into the mechanical interlocking with increasing
Table 3.strength
concrete Studiesin onbars
the with
influence of surface
fine coating. type onthe
Moreover, FRP–concrete
surface areasbond of thestrength.
fine sand-
coated bars are larger due to the presence of indentations on the surface, and therefore,
Concrete
the contribution of improving the concrete quality to the bond strength becomes more
First Surface Second Surface
considerableType Develo.
in these bars, having greater contact surface with concrete. Fiber d
Ref.
The other surface types, which Type
have
1 and
deeper surface Type 2convey
deformations, and the internal
and Length Type (mm)
forces to the surrounding concreteRibs throughDimensions
both friction andRib Dimensions
mechanical interlocking. The
Strength
two-component transfer mechanism is the main reason for the higher bond strengths of
these bars. The mechanical interlocking capacity changesSpirally with the ribwound
height,(HWrib spacing
and rib thickness.
NC From this point of view, with some exceptions, as the
or R)rib height increases
[27]
and the rib spacing decreases,5d the bondSC(HW + SCf)
strength increases. This increase stems Glass
from the 14
~30 MPa rh 4 = 0.50 mm; rs 5 =
increased surface area for the mechanical interlocking forces to develop. On the other side,
significantly narrow and deep ribs might also lead to considerable 8.60 mm in the rigidity
reductions
of ribs, and hence, lower limits for the spacing and upper limits for
Deep thread In the rib(HW
height need
to be established with the help of more detailed studies. In general, the bars with “In”
NC or R)
[27] type have larger rib
surface 5dspacingsSC(HW + SCf)
due to the increased rib thickness values and Glass these 14
~30lower
bars possess MPabond strengths as compared to the bars with rh = “Rb”
0.80 surface
mm; rstexture.
= The
lower bond strength values are caused by the fact that the force10.00 transfer mm in the indented
bars rely mostly
NCon the surface friction rather than mechanical interlocking. As in the case
of[28]
indented bars, the bond6d strength valuesSof(S) SC (SCc)
the ribbed bars remain Glass
below the respective 13
28 helically
values of the MPa wound bars.
NC the proportion of the forces transferred by the surface friction andCar-
In HW bars, me-
[28]
chanical interlocking 6d S (HW) SC (HW + SCf) 10
28 MPa varies with the height of the ribs. The contribution of mechanical bon
interlocking increases with increasing rib depth, resulting in the increased adherence. Addi-
tionally, theCAC-S Shallow
bar starts to behave similar rib (HW)
to a wedge Deep rib
with increasing rib(HW
height. or R)
Consequently,
Car-
[30]
the 5d to the
shear forces are transmitted rh =HW 0.20 mm;
bars rs = dissimilar
gradually, rh = 0.56 to mm; rs = transfer
the sudden 8
~30 MPa bon
11.00 mm 11.00 mm
RAC HW(HW or R)
[31] 5d SC(SCf) Basalt 10
35 MPa rs = 9.60 mm
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 13 of 29

of the shear forces in the FRP bars with In and Rb surface types. At around the peaks of the
ribs, the mechanical interlocking forces turn completely into friction forces. This gradual
transfer might also delay the shear failure of the beam by providing the transmission of
shear forces along numerous interlaminar shear surfaces on the FRP bar instead of a single
surface. The bars with “Rb” type of surface have superior bonding strength values when
compared to the bars with “HW” type of surface.

3.2. Reinforcement Arrangement and Configuration

3.2.1. Concrete Cover and Bar Spacing
The effects of concrete cover and bar spacing on FRP–concrete bond strength have also
been subject to a variety of studies in the literature. The researchers have sought to identify
the changes in the failure modes of FRP bars with changing bar spacing and concrete cover.
Albeit an adequate number of studies were devoted to the effect of concrete cover, the bar
spacing has caught the attention of only few researchers. Table 4 tabulates the statistical,
review and research studies on the influence of concrete cover on the FRP–concrete bond.
The table clearly shows that the bond strength increases considerably with increasing
concrete cover, which is thought to improve the confining pressure on the rebar. Besides this,
the failure mode alters from concrete splitting to pull-out (bar debonding), and therefore,
the confinement is improved with increasing concrete cover (Figure 5) [60,63]. The previous
works depicted that the final failure is concrete splitting in the presence of a concrete
cover of d (bar diameter) in all concrete types, i.e., NSC (normal-strength concrete), HSC
(high-strength concrete), UHSC (ultra-high-strength concrete) [64,65]. When the concrete
cover reaches 2d, the failure mode might turn into bar debonding or bar rupture depending
on the embedment length [65]. In a related study, a clear cover of 2d (concrete cover of 2.5d)
was reported to effectively prevent concrete splitting [35], while another study insists on a
clear cover of 3d for avoiding the splitting failure completely [66]. ACI 440 1R-15 [5] states
that the final failure will completely originate from bar debonding in the presence of a clear
cover of 3d as long as the embedment length of the bar exceeds 19d.
The previous studies adopted a variety of surface textures and FRP mechanical prop-
erties. Furthermore, significant variations in concrete strength and embedment length
makes it almost impossible to reach precise conclusions on the need for concrete cover
for the complete prevention of concrete splitting. The concrete splitting failure is a result
of the transfer of splitting forces to concrete [67], which is only possible when the rebar
is subjected to excessive tensile stresses. Hence, the concrete splitting failure is probable
only for certain clear cover and embedment length values [68]. As long as the concrete
cover and embedment length exceed their respective threshold values, the rebar is expected
to undergo debonding or tensile rupture failures [69]. That is why the critical values for
the embedment length and concrete cover need to be specified to ascertain debonding or
rupture failures and the critical values can only be identified with the help of additional
experimental studies.
In summary, the FRP–concrete bond strength generally increases with increasing
concrete cover since the confinement around the bar is improved with increasing cover
thickness. The general tendency of the change in the FRP–concrete bond strength with
increasing cover is complicated to specify as the failure mode also changes with increasing
thickness of the concrete layer around the bar. Strictly speaking, the bond strength under-
goes sudden changes while increasing the concrete cover, particularly at the transition of
the failure mode from concrete splitting to debonding or rupture. Furthermore, concrete
cover cannot be considered alone in the evaluation of test results, since this parameter
governs the failure mode of a rebar together with the bar embedment length. Hence, the
previous studies refrained from focusing on the simultaneous effects of concrete cover and
embedment length on the FRP–concrete cover. Instead, only one of these two parameters
changed in the related tests while keeping the other parameter fixed.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 14 of 29

Table 4. Studies on the influence of concrete cover on FRP–concrete bond strength.

Concrete Type Fiber Type cc-First 1 cc-Second 2 3

Embedment Surface Change in τ
Ref. and Concrete and (Failure (Failure
Length Type (%)
Strength d (mm) Type) Type)
UPC Glass
[20] 4d R (R) 3d (P 5 ) 5d (P) +10
Cu 4 98 MPa 10 mm
NC Glass 1.5 (S 6 ), 2.50d (P),
[70] 4d R (In) +16, +19
68 MPa 16 mm 2.50d (P) 6.25d (P)
NC Glass 1.50d (S), 2.50d (P),
[70] 6d R (In) +3, +15
68 MPa 16 mm 2.50d (P) 6.25d (P)
SFRSCC Glass 1.25d (P), 2.50d (P),
[42] 5d, 20d SC (SCf) +21, +8
~64 MPa 12, 12 mm 1.25d (P) 2.50d (P)
1.88d (P), 3.75d (P),
SFRSCC Glass
[42] 5d, 20d, 20d R (In) 1.88d (P), 3.75d (P), −2, +17, +20
~64 MPa 8, 8, 12 mm
1.25d (S) 2.50d (P)
NC
Glass
[35] Cu 36 MPa 10d Fine SC (SCf) 2.00d (P) 3.00d (P) +10
8 mm

NC
Fine SC Carbon
[35] Cu 36 MPa 10d 2.00d (P) 3.00d (P) 0
(SCf) 8 mm

NC
R Glass
[35] Cu 36 MPa 10d 2.00d (P) 3.00d (P) +15
(HW or R) 8 mm

NC
R Glass
[35] Cu 36 MPa 10d 2.00d (P) 3.00d (P) 0
(In) 8 mm

1.50d (S) 2.00d (P) +27

NC Fine SC Glass
[71] 5d 2.00d (P) 2.50d (P) −6
50 MPa (SCf) 16 mm
2.50d (P) 2.50d (P) −15
1.50d (S−P) 2.00d (S) +4
NC Fine SC Glass
[71] 5d 2.00d (S) 2.50d (P) −6
50 MPa (SCf) 19 mm
2.50d (P) 2.50d (P) −2
NC R Glass 1.25d (S) 2.50d −11
[72] 5d
Cu 39 MPa (In) 8 mm 2.50d 8.88d −22
NC R Glass 1.25d (S) 2.50d −6
[72] 5d
Cu 56 MPa (In) 8 mm 2.50d 8.88d −9
[37] Soft computing techniques and statistical study Increase
[49] Artificial neural network and statistical study Remarkable
[73] Gauss process regression and statistical study Increase
[74] Review Increase
[38] Review Increase
1 2 3 4 5
clear cover of reference bar; clear cover of the compared bar; the bond strength; cubic; pull-out failure;
6 concrete splitting.

The number of studies on the influence of bar spacing on the FRP–concrete bond
is rather limited and these studies showed that increasing the spacing between bars can
contribute to the bond strength up to 50% [35,50]. If the spacing exceeds 7d, the bond
strength was found to be unaffected by further increasing the bar spacing [35].
 values of GFRP bars (except the smooth ones) vary in the range of 0.45–1.07, BFRP bars i
the range of 0.36–1.46, and CFRP bars in the range of 0.60–1.35 times the respectiv
strength values of the comparable ribbed steel bars. This comparison does not embrac
the AFRP bars due to dearth of studies on these bars. Independent from the fiber type
Polymers 2022, 14,
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796
x the bond strength values can be observed to vary in a broad range, most probably 1615of
of 31
29 due t
the non-uniformity of the surface textures of the bars in these studies. The same com
parison is also elaborated in Section 3.1.3, since the surface texture of the bar is muc
more influential on the bond strength than the other parameters.
In order to determine the effect of fiber properties on bond strength, Table 2 als
compares the test results of the bars with identical bar diameter, surface texture and tes
conditions but with different fiber type. This comparison indicates that the bond strengt
values of CFRP bars range between 0.92 and 2.83 times the respective values of the GFR
bars, while the bond strengths of BFRP bars lie in the range of 1.29–1.88 times th
strength values of their GFRP counterparts. The bond strength values of the CFRP bar
on the other hand, remain in the interval of 0.71–1.51 times those of the BFRP counter
Figure
parts.6. Bond failure
thetypes (a) pure pullout;values
(b) conventional
of CFRPconcrete
rebarscover; (c) V-shaped concrete
Figure 5.Finally,
Bond failure related
types strength
(a) pure pullout; (b) conventional concrete change
cover; from 1.16
(c) V-shaped to 1.69 time
concrete
cover; (d) diagonal concrete cover; (e) concrete block split [71].
the bond strength values of the AFRP rebars with
cover; (d) diagonal concrete cover; (e) concrete block split [71]. identical features.
The number of studies on the influence of bar spacing on the FRP–concrete bond is
rather limited and these studies showed that increasing the spacing between bars can
contribute to the bond strength up to 50% [35,50]. If the spacing exceeds 7d, the bond
strength was found to be unaffected by further increasing the bar spacing [35].

3.2.2. Development (ld) or Embedment Length (le)

There has been a great deal of research undertaken in the literature on the effects of
embedment or development length on the FRP–concrete bond strength
[22,24,38,47,70,75–78]. Two modes of behavior were reported in these studies. First, the
non-uniform bond stress distribution with increasing development or embedment length
reduces the maximum bond strength. The second observation is the reduced bond
strength values due to the decrease in the friction, which is associated with the reductions
in Poisson’s effect with increasing embedment length. Yet, higher adherence forces were
Figure6. 3. FRP barsandand fiber types (a) Aramid [39]; (b) [40];
Basalt
(c)[40]; (c) [41];
Carbon [41]; [42].
(d) Glass [42].
Figure
stated toFRPbe bars
conveyedfiber types
with (a) Aramid
increasing [39]; (b)
embedment Basalt length Carbon
as compared (d) to
Glass
the short
lengths. The list of statistical, review and research studies on the effects of embedment or
3.2.2. Development (l ) or Embedment Length (le )
development length don bond strength are given in Table 5. With few exceptions, the
Thereresults
tabulated has been a great
clearly dealthat
imply of research
increasingundertaken in the literature
the development on the in
length results effects
reduc-of
embedment or development length on the FRP–concrete bond strength [22,24,38,47,70,75–78].
tions in the bond strength value. However, the degree of this reduction is non-linear and
Two modes on
dependent of behavior were reported
the test parameters. in these
(Figure studies. First, The
7) [18,20,24,78]. the non-uniform
adherence failure bond stress
types
distribution with increasing development or embedment length reduces the maximum
are introduced in Section 3.2.1 with regard to the clear cover and embed-
bond strength. The second observation is the reduced bond strength values due to the
ment/development length.
decrease in the friction, which is associated with the reductions in Poisson’s effect with
increasing embedment length. Yet, higher adherence forces were stated to be conveyed
with increasing embedment length as compared to the short lengths. The list of statistical,
review and research studies on the effects of embedment or development length on bond
strength are given in Table 5. With few exceptions, the tabulated results clearly imply
that increasing the development length results in reductions in the bond strength value.
However, the degree of this reduction is non-linear and dependent on the test parameters.
(Figure 7) [18,20,24,78]. The adherence failure types are introduced in Section 3.2.1 with
regard to the clear cover and embedment/development length.

Table 5. Studies on the influence of reinforcement location on FRP–concrete bond strength.

Concrete Bar Surface le-first 1 le-second 2

Change in τ 3
Ref. Type Diameter Type and Fiber Type (mm or d) (mm or d)
(%)
and Grade (mm) Rib Dimensions (Failure) (Failure)
SCC 40 (P 4 ) 80 (P) −27
[18] 12 T (HW) Basalt
54 MPa 80 (P) 120 (P) −40
R (HW or R)
CAC 5d (P) 10d (P) −9
[29] 10 rh 5 = 0.36 mm; Basalt
~27 MPa 6 10d (P) 12d (R 7 ) −4
rs = 9.02 mm
Figure 7. Effect of embedment length on bond strength [38].
Polymers 2022, 14, x 16 of 31
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 16 of 29

Table 5. Cont.

Concrete Bar Surface le-first 1 le-second 2

Change in τ 3
Ref. Type Diameter Type and Fiber Type (mm or d) (mm or d)
(%)
and Grade (mm) Rib Dimensions (Failure) (Failure)
Deep rib (HW or R)
CAC-S
[30] 8 rh = 0.56 mm; Carbon 5d (P) 7.5d (P) −1
~30 MPa
rs = 11.00 mm

Figure 6. BondShallow
failurerib (HW)
types (a) pure pullout; (b) conventional concrete cover; (c) V-shaped concrete
CAC-S
[30] 8 rh = 0.20 mm;
cover; (d) diagonal concrete cover; (e)Carbon
concrete block 5d (P)[71].
split 7.5d (P) −13
~30 MPa
rs = 11.00 mm
Deep ribof(HW
The number or R)on the influence of bar spacing on the FRP–concrete bond is
studies
CAC-S
[30] 12
rather limitedrhand
= 0.60 mm;studies Basalt
these 5d (P)
showed that increasing the7.5d (S) between−16
spacing bars can
~30 MPa
rs = 11.00 mm
contribute to the bond strength up to 50% [35,50]. If the spacing exceeds 7d, the bond
[44]
SCGC strength
10
Spiral-wound
was found to be(HWunaffected 5d (P)
by further increasing
Basalt the 10d spacing [35]. −31
bar (P)
40 MPa or R) 10d (P) 15d (P) −21
GPC 3.2.2. Development (ld) or Embedment Length (l5d
e) (P) 10d (R) −2
[79] 8 R (R) Basalt
42 MPa 10d (R) 15d (P) −54
There has been a great deal of research undertaken in the literature on the effects of
[80]
NC 8
embedment or
(HW development
or R) length on10d the
Basalt
(P) FRP–concrete
20d (R) bond −38 strength
Cu 8 38 MPa [22,24,38,47,70,75–78]. Two modes of behavior were reported in these studies.−First,
12 10d (P) 20d (R) 30 the
NC non-uniform bond stress distribution with increasing development or embedment length
[57] 16 Fine SC (SCf) Glass 5d (P) 10d (P) −48
23 MPa reduces the maximum bond strength. The second observation is the reduced bond
NC strength values due to the decrease in the friction, which is associated with the reductions
[57] 16 Coarse SC (SCc) Glass 5d (P) 10d (P) −46
23 MPa in Poisson’s effect with increasing embedment length. Yet, higher adherence forces were
[37] stated
Soft to betechniques
computing conveyed and with increasing
statistical study embedment length as Nonlinear compared to the short
Decrease
[49] lengths. The list of statistical, review
Artificial neural network and statistical study and research studies on the effects of embedment
Decrease or
development length on bond strength are given in Table 5. With few exceptions, the
[68] Statistical study Decrease
tabulated results clearly imply that increasing the development length results in reduc-
[24] tions in the bondReview study value. However, the degree of this reduction
strength Decrease
is non-linear and
[38] dependent on the test
Review studyparameters. (Figure 7) [18,20,24,78]. The adherence Decreasefailure types
1are introduced
embedment length ofinreference
Section bar; 3.2.1 with ofregard
2 embedment to the
the compared bar; 3clear cover
the bond and4 debonding
strength; embed-
5 rib height; 6 rib spacing; 7 tension rupture; 8 cubic.
ment/development length.
(pull-out) failure;

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Effect
Effect of
of embedment
embedment length
length on
on bond
bond strength
strength [38].
[38].
 Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 17 of 29

3.2.3. Reinforcement Position

The studies on the effects of reinforcement location concentrated on two positions,
namely the lower and upper portions of the member, according to the direction of concrete
Polymers 2022, 14, x cast. These studies generally concluded that the bond strengths of the upper bars are 18 of 3
smaller than their lower counterparts since the water, air and fine aggregates in the mixture
move upwards and accumulate underneath the rebars (Figure 8) [65,81,82].

Figure8.8.Effect
Figure Effect
of of reinforcement
reinforcement position
position on bond
on bond strength
strength [67]. [67].

InIntwo
two ofofthese
thesestudies [65,81],
studies the bond
[65,81], strength
the bond valuesvalues
strength of the rebars
of thewere
rebarsshownweretoshown t
drop
drop up to 16% and 32% for an increase of 400 and 800 mm, respectively, in cast
up to 16% and 32% for an increase of 400 and 800 mm, respectively, in the concrete the concret
depth. In another
cast depth. study [82],
In another the GFRP
study [82], bar
thewith
GFRPa 150 mm
bar greater
with a 150castmmdepth was shown
greater to
cast depth wa
have a 50% lower bond strength value than the bottom bar. Another research study reported
shown to have a 50% lower bond strength value than the bottom bar. Another researc
a decrease of 74% in the bond strength with an additional concrete cast depth of 140 mm.
study reported
Nonetheless, a decrease
this reduction wasof 74%toinbethe
stated duebond strength
to possible withand
bleeding an segregation
additionalinconcrete
the cas
depth of
concrete 140 mm.
mixture. Nonetheless,
Additionally, this reduction
a maximum decrease of was
22%stated to be due
was reported in thetosame
possible
studybleedin
and segregation in the concrete mixture. Additionally, a maximum
for Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) mixtures [83]. The statistical studies reported reduction decrease of 22% wa
reported
in the bondin the same
strength and study
increaseforin Self-Compacting
the development length Concrete (SCC) mixtures
with increasing depth of [83].
the The sta
bar position
tistical in thereported
studies member reduction
[37,74]. ACIin440.1R-15
the bond [5]strength
recommends and aincrease
reduction inofthe
33% for
developmen
rebars with concrete cast depths exceeding 305 mm. Based on all these
length with increasing depth of the bar position in the member [37,74]. ACI 440.1R-15 [5 studies, the degree
of influence of the
recommends concrete cast
a reduction depth
of 33% onrebars
for the bondwithstrength
concretevaries
castindepths
a broadexceeding
range. Yet,305 mm
these reduction rates are affected by many additional factors, including but not limited to
Based on all these studies, the degree of influence of the concrete cast depth on the bon
the bar diameter, bar surface texture, concrete mixture (W/C ratio, maximum aggregate
strength varies in a broad range. Yet, these reduction rates are affected by many add
size, grain size distribution), bar location, concrete cast and curing conditions. Moreover,
tional
for factors,
concrete cast including
depths above but200notmmlimited
and intothethe bar diameter,
absence bar surface
of any bleeding texture,
in concrete, the concret
mixture (W/C ratio, maximum aggregate size, grain size distribution),
bond strength can be conservatively decreased by 50% and 20% in conventional concrete bar location, con
crete
and SCC,castrespectively.
and curingThe conditions.
variation in Moreover, for in
the reduction concrete cast depths
bond strength above
up to this depth200can
mm and i
be assumed to be linear. Further and more detailed studies are needed
the absence of any bleeding in concrete, the bond strength can be conservatively de on the subject.
creased by 50% and 20% in conventional concrete and SCC, respectively. The variation i
the reduction in bond strength up to this depth can be assumed to be linear. Further an
more detailed studies are needed on the subject.

3.2.4. Confining Effect from Transverse Reinforcement

A great majority of the previous studies in the literature consisted of pull-out test
for determining the FRP–concrete bond strength, and hence, the number of studies on th
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 18 of 29

3.2.4. Confining Effect from Transverse Reinforcement

A great majority of the previous studies in the literature consisted of pull-out tests
for determining the FRP–concrete bond strength, and hence, the number of studies on
the effects of transverse reinforcement on the FRP–concrete bond is rather limited. The
confining effect of transverse reinforcement on the longitudinal bars can only be reflected
with the help of beam tests. There are two common opinions on this confining effect. The
first one is the contribution of transverse reinforcement to bond strength through limitation
of the crack widths in the member [49]. Accordingly, the bond strength can be increased up
29% with the help of the confining effect from the transverse reinforcement [84–86]. Yet, this
effect also depends on the surface quality of the rebar [87]. The second view opposes the first
one by implying that the hardness of the steel stirrups results in the peeling of bar surface
during the bar slip and has an adverse effect on the bond strength [35]. Another statistical
study reported the bond strength values to remain unaffected by the presence of transverse
reinforcement [68]. According to these studies, the transverse reinforcement can be stated
to have a positive or negative influence on the bar bond strength. Notwithstanding, there
is a clear need for further studies on this very topic due to significant differences between
the parameters and conditions of the related tests. In this respect, further studies are
needed on the effects of transverse reinforcement on the FRP–concrete bond strength by
also considering the concrete cover and bar surface texture as test variables.

3.3. Inherent Properties of Concrete

3.3.1. Compressive Strength
The effect of concrete compressive strength on bond behavior may differ in steel and
FRP reinforcing bars. Since steel rebars are homogeneous and isotropic as well as have a
wholistic structure, bond failure patterns and stresses are governed by the shear strength of
concrete [88]. However, owing to the composite structure of FRP, the bonding failure of FRP
bars can be governed by the resin–fiber and resin–surface interlaminar shear stresses as well
as the shear stresses in concrete (Figure 9) [21,88,89]. Table 6 lists the statistical, review and
research studies on the effects of concrete compressive strength on the FRP–concrete bond.
As can be seen in Table 6, the bond behavior of FRP rebars with different surface properties
has been examined by previous researchers fora variety of concrete compressive strength
values. The bond strength was found to increase with increasing concrete strength in almost
all studies. The positive influence of increasing the concrete strength on bonding behavior
arises from the restriction of internal crack propagation in concrete [72,90]. However,
Table 6 also shows that the degree of influence of concrete strength on the FRP–concrete
bond is variable in a wide range. There are also studies where the effect of increasing the
concrete compressive strength on bonding behavior is limited due to the peeling of the
outer surface of the FRP reinforcement from the resin or the interlaminar slip between the
resin and fiber layers [21,74,89]. This limited effect depends on the fiber and resin densities,
production types, fiber types, rigidities, maximum elongation rates and surface properties
of the bars. If the shear strength of concrete is lower than the interlaminar shear strength,
the failure originates from the shear failure of concrete, while the failure results from the
stripping of the outer surface from the resin or interlaminar slip inside the matrix if the
shear strength of concrete exceeds the internal shear strength of the FRP bar.

3.3.2. Fiber Contribution

The effects of fiber addition to concrete mixture, which aims at controlling the crack
widths by increasing the tensile strength of concrete, on the FRP–concrete bond has been
subject to various studies in the literature. Some of these studies are given in Table 7. In
these studies, a maximum fiber proportion of 1% by mass was used in the concrete mixture.
The use of fibers tends to have a positive influence on FRP–concrete bond strength, while
the degree of this influence can be rather diverse in different studies. This diversity is
mostly due to the different surface textures of the bars in different studies although being
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 19 of 29

Polymers 2022, 14, x 20 of 31

assumed to originate from the type and amount of fibers in the concrete mixture. This
surface texture affects the extent and distribution of initial cracks in concrete.

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Failure
Failure types:
types: (a)
(a)Concrete
Concrete shear
shear failure;
failure; (b)
(b) Peeling
Peeling of
of rebar
rebar [36].
[36].

Table
Table 6. Studies on the influence of concrete compressive strength on FRP–concrete
FRP–concrete bond
bond strength.
strength.

Concrete Concrete Fiber Type Fiber Type 1 2 Change

in τ 3
Ref. Typeand
Devel. Surface
Typeand Devel. Surface
and Bar andfc-first
Bar ffc-second
c-first 1
Change
fc-second 2
Ref.
Length Type (MPa) (MPa) (%) τ 3
in
Specimen Shape Specimen Length Type
Diameter (mm)Diameter (MPa) (MPa)
(%)
RAC Shape Carbon (mm) 34 47 +3
[72] 5d Sand Coated (SCf)
Cube RAC 12 Carbon47 3463 47 +46 +3
[72] 5d Sand Coated(SCf)
RAC Cube
SC with shallow spiral In Basalt 12 34 4747 63 +12 +46
[72] 5d
Cube RAC (HW + SCc) SC with shallow 12 spi- 47
Basalt 3463 47 +1 +12
[72] 5d
RAC Cube ral In(HW +Glass
SCc) 1234 4747 63 −9 +1
[72] 5d R (HW or R)
Cube RAC 12 47
Glass 3463 47 +13 −9
[72] 5d R(HW or R)
[29]
CAC
10d
CubeR (HW or R) Basalt 1216 4722 63 +21 +13
Cube rh 4 = 0.36 mm; rs 5 = 9.02 mm R(HW or R) 10 22 32 +57
CAC Basalt 16 22 +21
NC R (HW or R) rh = 0.36 mm; Glass 25 49 +100
5d [29] 10d rs =
4 5
[60]
Cube rh =Cube
0.50 mm; rs = 18.00 mm 9.02 mm 12 1049 2264 32 +15 +57
ECC R (R) R(HW orCarbon
R)
[33] 100 mm 31 2570 49 +163+100
Cube rh = NC
0.20 mm; rs = 10.5 mm Glass
[60] 5d rh = 0.50 mm;16 rs =
NC Cube Glass 12 49 64 +18 +15
[57] 5d Fine SC (SCf) 18.00 mm 23 56
− 9 and 16 +2
R(R)
NC ECC 100 Glass Carbon +34+163
[57] 5d [33] Coarse SC (SCc)rh = 0.20 mm; rs = 10.5 3156 70
− Cube mm 9 and 16 1623 +16
mm
NC NC (R) Basalt 37 55 +109
[75] 5d Glass +18
− [57] 5d Fine SC(SCf)10 55 2373 56 +23
− 9 and 16 +2
NC 285 mm Glass 32 42 +13
[91]
− 380 mm
HWNC + SC (HW + SCf)
19 Glass
31 +16 +34
[57] 5d Coarse SC(SCc) 2339 56
− 9 and 16 +16
NC Glass 30 53 +36
[61] 5d NC Grooved (In) Basalt 3757 55
− 8 and 16 27 +44+109
[75] 5d (R)
− 10 55 73 +23
285
NC Glass 32 42 +13
[91] mm HW + SC(HW + SCf)
− 19 31 39 +16
380
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 20 of 29

Table 6. Cont.

Concrete Fiber Type

Devel. Surface fc-first 1 fc-second 2 Change in τ 3
Ref. Typeand and Bar
Length Type (MPa) (MPa) (%)
Specimen Shape Diameter (mm)
NC Glass
[61] 5d HW, SC (HW + SCf) 29 51 +73
− 13
NC Glass 35 66 +90
[36] 5d Fine SC (SCf)
− 8 and 12 35 66 +94
NC Glass 35 66 +36
[36] 5d Coarse SC (SCf)
− 8 and 12 35 66 +64
NC In (In) Glass 35 66 +65
[36] 5d
− rh = 0.74 mm; rs = 8.74 mm 8 and 12 35 66 +50
NC R (R) Glass 35 66
[36] 5d +87
− rh = 0.46 mm; rs = 5.90 mm 8 and 12 35 66
NC Basalt
[34] 5d HW (HW or R) 44 72 +19
cube 10
71 129 −1
129 148 +7
NC SC Glass 148 175 −3
[63] 5d
− (SCf) 16and 19 71 129 +15
129 148 −4
148 175 −1
NC SC Glass 26 41 +7
[88] 4d
− (SCf) 13 41 92 +18
NC Glass 26 41 +14
[88] 4d HW
− 13 41 92 +21
NC Steel 26 41 +13
[88] 4d (HW)
− 13 41 92 +47
[37] Soft computing techniques and statistical study Linear Decrease
[74] Review study Increase
1 concrete strength of reference bar; 2 concrete strength of the compared bar; 3 bond strength; 4 rib height;
5 rib spacing.

This cracking might also be affected by the fibers inside the mixture by improving the
tensile strength of concrete and this effect will primarily depend on the density and length
of fibers in the vicinity of the rebars (Figure 10). Nonetheless, significant variations were
reported in certain studies despite the identical concrete compressive strength values, fiber
type and densities and bar surface textures in these studies. These variations originate from
two main reasons. First, concrete mixtures were not prepared and cast homogeneously
in these studies. Secondly, the different maximum aggregate sizes and fiber lengths in
these studies are thought to control the initiation and distribution of cracking in concrete
and cause significant differences in bonding properties of the bars with various surface
textures. Therefore, additional studies on fiber-added concrete mixtures with predefined
and controlled maximum aggregate sizes and fiber lengths need to be conducted.

3.3.3. Concrete Type

Various types of concrete were employed in the previous studies on the FRP–concrete
bond (Table 8). However, the effect of concrete type on the FRP–concrete bond could not be
made in the present review due to the scarcity of studies on the topic. Precise and accurate
conclusions can only be achieved in the present of adequate studies.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 21 of 29

Table 7. Studies on the influence of fiber contribution on FRP–concrete bond strength.

Concrete Fiber Type Original Fiber

Surface
Fiber Type Develop. and Bar Concrete Concrete Change in τ 3
Ref. Type and Rib
and Length Length (mm) Diameter Strength 1 Strength 2 (MPa) (%)
Dimensions
(mm) (mm) (MPa) &Fiber Vol.
Aramid Glass Cu 43
[92] 150 SC (SCf) Cu 4 47 ~0
(30–40) 12 (%0.5)
Helically
Aramid Glass Cu 43
[92] 150 deformed Cu 47 ~0
(30–40) 12 (%0.5)
(HW or R)
Aramid R Glass Cu 43
[92] 150 Cu 47 ~+20
(30–40) (HW or R) 12 (%0.5)
Polyolefin
Carbon
[93] structural 5d (HW) 74 75 (%1) +25
9
synthetic(30)
PVA Carbon
[93] 5d (HW) 74 75 (%1) +30
(30) 9
Steel Glass 59 57 (%0.5) +53
[94] 5d SC (SCf)
(30) 13 59 58 (%1.0) +10
Polypropylene Glass 59 52 (%0.5) +29
[94] 5d SC (SCf)
(30) 13 59 56 (%1.0) +36
PVA Glass 59 54 (%0.5) +45
[94] 5d SC (SCf)
(30) 13 59 63 (%1.0) +54
Steel Glass 59 57 (%0.5) +3
[94] 5d HW (HW)
(30) 13 59 58 (%1.0) +8
Polypropylene Glass 59 52 (%0.5) −5
[94] 5d HW (HW)
(30) 13 59 56 (%1.0) −4
PVA Glass 59 54 (%0.5) 0
[94] 5d HW (HW)
(30) 13 59 63 (%1.0) −5
Steel Two directional Carbon 94 96 (%0.25) +24
[95] 4d
(32) rib (HW or R) 9 94 103 (%0.5) +57
Steel One directional Carbon 94 96 (%0.25) +33
[95] 4d
(32) rib (HW or R) 9 94 103 (%0.5) +67
Polypropylene Basalt 54 50 (%0.30) −16
[18] 80 mm T (HW)
(12) 12 54 49 (%0.60) −24
Polypropylene HW + SC Glass 54 50 (%0.30) −39
[18] 80 mm
(12) (HW + SCf) 12 54 49 (%0.60) −61
Glass 49 50 (%0.50) −5
(18) HW + SC Glass 49 54 (%1.00) −4
[96]
(36) (HW + SCf) 10 49 50 (%0.50) −3
(50) 49 54 (%1.00) 0
Glass R 49 50 (%0.50) −13
(18) (R) Basalt 49 54 (%1.00) −11
[96]
(36) rh 5 = 0.80 mm 10 49 50 (%0.50) −5
(50 mm) rs 6 = 10.50 mm 49 54 (%1.00) −5
1 plain mixture; 2 fiber added mixture; 3 bond strength; 4 cubic; 5 rib height; 6 rib spacing.
 (18) rh 5 = 0.80 Basalt 49 54 (%1.00)
[96]
(36) mm 10 49 50 (%0.50)
(50 mm) rs 6 = 10.50 49 54 (%1.00)
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 mm 22 of 29
1 plain mixture; 2 fiber added mixture; 3 bond strength; 4 cubic; 5 rib height; 6 rib spacing.

Figure
Figure 10.10. Effect
Effect of fibers
of fibers on concrete
on concrete cracks [97].
cracks [97].

Table 8. Studies on the influence of concrete type on FRP–concrete bond strength.

3.3.3. Concrete Type
Specimen Various typesFiber
of Type
concrete wereFirst employedSecondin the previous1 studies
Shape and Surface Concrete Type Concrete Type Change in τ
Ref.
Embedment FRP–concrete
Type bond (Table
And Bar 8). However, the effect of concrete type on the FRP–
and Strength and Strength (%)
Length bond could not beDiameter
made in (mm)
the present
(MPa) review due(MPa)
to the scarcity of studies on t
[46]
− Precise
SC and accurate conclusions
Glass canNConly be achieved
SCC in the present of adequate
+5
40d (SCc) 16 39 41
− SC 8. Studies on the influence
Table Glass NC type on FRP–concrete
of concrete SCC bond−strength.
[46] 18
40d (SCc) 16 39 41
Cu 2 R Specimen Glass NC SCC First
[98]
3d (R) 16 48 Fiber Type45 Second Con-
+13
Shape and Concrete
Cu R
Ref. Embed- GlassSurface NC And Bar SCC crete Type and
Type and +9
[98]
3d (R) 16 Type 65 Diameter 60 Strength
ment Strength
[72]
Cu SC Carbon NC (mm) RAC −2 (MPa)
5d (SCf) Length 12 37 34 (MPa)
Cu SC with shallow spiral−In Basalt SC NC Glass RAC NC SCC
[72] [46]+ SCc) +3
5d (HW 12 37 34
40d (SCc) 16 39 41
Cu R Glass NC RAC
[72]
5d (HW
− SC Glass 34 NC +24 SCC
[46]or R) 12 37
40d Glass (SCc) 16 HVFAC 39 41
− SC NC −18
[26]
5d (HW Cu 2 13 R Glass(%50 rep.) NC −7 SCC
[98]+ SCf) 19
37
30
3d (R) 16 48 45
Glass HVFAC
− [98]
SC Cu R NC Glass(%50 rep.) NC −29 SCC
[26] 13
5d (HW + SCf) 37 −28
19 30
− R Basalt HPC UHPC
[99] ~0
2d (R) 10 82 137
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 23 of 29

Table 8. Cont.

Specimen First Second

Fiber Type
Shape and Surface Concrete Type Concrete Type Change in τ 1
Ref. And Bar
Embedment Type and Strength and Strength (%)
Diameter (mm)
Length (MPa) (MPa)
− R Glass HPC UHPC
[99] ~0
2d (R) 10 82 137
− Steel HPC UHPC
[99] Deformed +38
2d 10 82 137
Cu Spiral ribs + SC Glass MPC MPC-S +14
[45]
65 mm (HW + SCf) rh 3 = 0.21 mm 13 48 49
Cu Spiral ribs + SC (HW + SCf) Glass NC NC-S
[45] −13
65 mm rh = 0.21 mm 13 50 48
Cu Spiral ribs Basalt NC MPC
[45] +51
65 mm (HW or R) rh = 0.45 mm 12 50 48
Cu Spiral ribs + SC Glass NC MPC
[45] +24
65 mm (HW + SCf) rh = 0.21 mm 13 50 48
Cu R Steel NC MPC
[45] −1
65 mm (R) 13 50 48
− HW + SC Glass SSSC (%0 EA) SSSC (%6 EA)
[96] +10
50 mm (HW + SCf) 10 49 54
− R (R) Basalt SSSC (%0 EA) SSSC (%6 EA)
[96] −13
50 mm rh = 0.80 mm; rs 4 = 10.50 mm 11 49 54
− HW Basalt NC RAC
[31] −31
5d (HW or R) 8 43 35
− HW Basalt NC SSC
[31] +1
5d (HW or R) 8 43 45
− HW Basalt SSC SSC + RAC
[31] −19
5d (HW or R) 8 45 40
Cu R Basalt NC SSC-S
[100] +41
90 mm (HW or Ribbed) 14 51 47
Cu SC Basalt NC SSC-S
[100] +8
90 mm (HW or R +SCm) 16 51 47
1 bond strength; 2 cubic specimen; 3 rib height; 4 rib spacing.

4. Conclusions
The present paper is a detailed literature review on all parameters affecting the bond
behavior of FRP reinforcing bars embedded in concrete. The influence of each parameter is
discussed in the light of the findings of previous researchers. Precise and clear comments
are given throughout the manuscript. The controversial and opposing comments of the
previous researchers are not mentioned in the manuscript, since most of these comments
originate from the differences between the testing conditions and test methods in different
studies and negligence of certain parameters affecting the FRP–concrete bond. With the aim
of not listing the inconsistent and ambiguous findings, only the following unquestionable
conclusions are given in the present text together with the justifications behind each finding.
The bond strength of an FRP bar decreases with increasing bar diameter. This decrease
is associated with three possible reasons. First, the slip of fiber layers within the resin,
also known as the shear lag effect, is aggravated with increasing bar size and this effect
has a negative impact on the FRP–concrete bond. Secondly, the amount of air voids and
mixing water, accumulating underneath the bar, increases with increasing bar size and
the weakness of the concrete around the bar results in the reduction of the bond strength.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 24 of 29

Finally, the mechanical interlocking and surface friction forces of a bar decrease as a result
of the greater degree of Poisson’s effect on the bar with increasing bar diameter.
The bond strength values of GFRP bars are lower than the respective values of their
CFRP, AFRP and BFRP counterparts, embedded in a similar concrete mixture. The lower
adherence of GFRP to concrete stems from the more considerable shear lag effect in the
GFRP bars due to the lower axial stiffness than the other three types of FRP. The greater slip
of fibers from the core in GFRP results in the reduced bond strength values of these bars.
Furthermore, the increase in the radial thermal expansion of the BFRP, AFRP and CFRP
bars due to the friction at the bar–concrete interface improves the mechanical interlocking
and surface friction of these bars in concrete, as compared to the GFRP bars, which are
known to have smaller thermal expansion coefficient.
FRP bars with coarse sand-coating layer have higher bond strength values in normal-
strength concrete than the bars with fine sand-coating layer. However, the bonding behavior
of the fine sand-coated bars is improved to a greater extent with increasing concrete strength
as compared to the coarse sand-coated bars. The better compaction and the lower amounts
of air voids in high-strength concrete mixtures enable the fine particles of concrete to
penetrate into the fine sand-coating layer and improve the bond behavior.
The mechanical interlocking mechanism is improved in ribbed bars with increasing
rib height and decreasing rib spacing. The increase in the surface area for the development
of mechanical interlocking forces results in the FRP–concrete bond strength to increase
when using deeper ribs. However, further studies on the topic are needed to determine the
minimum spacing and maximum height limits of the ribs since too closely-spaced and/or
too deep ribs might reduce the rib rigidity and have adverse effects on the bond strength.
The thicker and more widely-spaced ribs in the bars with indented surface enables
them to transmit greater surface friction forces as compared to the ribbed bars. Therefore,
the bond strength values of the indented bars remain below the respective values of the
ribbed and helically wrapped bars.
The concrete cast depth underneath an FRP bar influences the bond strength to a sig-
nificant extent. With increasing cast depths, the amount of air voids and water underneath
a bar increases, resulting in the compressive strength of concrete surrounding the bar and
the FRP–concrete bond strength to decrease.
According to the existing studies in the literature, a clear concrete cover of at least
three times the bar diameter is compulsory to avoid concrete splitting failure and to allow
the debonding or tensile rupture failures to govern the specimen behavior. Increasing this
spacing beyond seven times the bar diameter does not have a considerable effect on the
FRP–concrete bond strength.
The contribution of increasing the compressive strength of concrete to FRP–concrete
bond strength is bounded by upper limits. Increasing this strength contributes to the shear
strength of the concrete layers around the bar, yet beyond certain limits of concrete strength,
the peeling of the outer bar surface from the core and/or slip of the fibers inside the resin can
trigger the bond failure of the bar rather than the shear failure of the surrounding concrete.
The bond strength tends to decrease with increasing embedment length of an FRP bar
in concrete. The non-uniform stress distributions along the bar length and the reductions
in the ability of a bar to convey the internal forces through surface friction are the primary
reasons for the reduction in bond strength with increasing embedment length. This decrease
follows a uniform path with increasing embedment length.
The transverse reinforcement definitely affects the FRP-concrete bond strength. How-
ever, further studies are needed to unfold the degree of this effect due to wide range of
variation of the other test variables in the existing studies.
The maximum aggregate size and fiber length controls the initiation and spread of
cracks in concrete based on the surface texture. Further studies are needed to uncover the
effects of maximum aggregate size on the bond strengths of FRP bars embedded in the
concrete mixtures with fibers.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 25 of 29

The existing studies are not sufficient to specify the concrete cover boundaries for
the change in the type of failure of FRP bars in concrete due to wide variations in the
surface types and mechanical properties of the tested bars as well as the wide ranges of
concrete strength and bar embedment length in the related tests. The concrete splitting
failure necessitates the transfer of adequate splitting forces in concrete [61], which is only
possible in the presence of specific clear cover and embedment length values [62]. Hence,
detailed further studies related to the boundaries for the change of the failure mode from
splitting to bar rupture or debonding are needed.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.B. and İ.K.; methodology, B.B.; formal analysis, B.B.;
investigation, A.B., İ.K. and B.B.; writing—original draft preparation, B.B.; writing—review and
editing, İ.K., A.B. and I.K.; supervision, İ.K.; project administration, A.B. and I.K.; funding acquisition,
A.B. and I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The scientific collaborations of this article have been improved by the support of the Polish
National Agency for Academic Exchange under Grant No. PPI/APM/2019/1/00003.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data, presented within the present paper, is available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
B Braided
CAC Coral Aggregate Concrete
Cu Cube strength
DS Deformed Surface
EA Expansive Agent
ECC Engineered Cementitious Composite
F Fracture
FC Fiber Concrete
GPC Geopolymer concrete
HPC High Performance Concrete
HSC High Strength Concrete (55 ≤ HSC ≤ 120 MPa)
HVFAC High Volume Fly Ash Concrete
MPC Magnesium Potassium Phosphate Cement
NC Normal concrete (Conventional vibrated concrete)
NSC Normal Strength Concrete (0 < NSC < 55 MPa)
P Pullout
R Rupture or Ribbed
RAC Recycled Aggregate Concrete
S Seawater
S Smooth
S Splitting
SFRSCC Steel Fiber-Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete
SS Splice Specimen
SSSC Seawater Sea-Sand Concrete
T Textured
UHPC Ultra-High-Performance Concrete
UHSC Ultra-High-Strength Concrete (UHSC > 120 MPa)
UPC Unsaturated Polyester Resin Concrete
d Rebar diameter (mm)
fc Cylinder concrete compressive strength (MPa)
h Beam height
ld Development length (mm or d)
le Embedment length (mm or d)
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 26 of 29

References
1. Bakis, C.E. FRP reinforcement: Materials and manufacturing. In Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Reinforced Concrete Structures; Nanni, A.,
Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 13–58. [CrossRef]
2. Newman, N.; Ayoub, A.; Belarbi, A. Development length of straight FRP composite bars embedded in concrete. J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos. 2010, 29, 571–589. [CrossRef]
3. Nanni, A.; De Luca, A.; Jawaheri, Z.H. Reinforced Concrete with FRP Bars, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014. [CrossRef]
4. GangaRao, H.V.S.; Taly, N.; Vijay, P.V. Reinforced Concrete Design with FRP Composites, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2006.
5. American Concrete Institute Committee 440. ACI 440.1R-15: Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced
with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2015.
6. The Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures. Design Manual No. 3: Reinforcing
Concrete Structures with Fibre Reinforced Polymers; ISIS: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2007.
7. International Federation for Structural Concrete. FIB Bulletin 40: FRP Reinforcement in RC Structures; CEB-FIB: Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2007.
8. CSA S6-19; Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian Standards Association Group. CSA Group: Toronto, ON,
Canada, 2019.
9. CSA S806; Design and Construction of Building Structures with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers. Canadian Standards Association
Group. CSA Group: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2017.
10. Xian, G.; Guo, R.; Li, C.; Hong, B. Effects of rod size and fiber hybrid mode on the interface shear strength of carbon/glass fiber
composite rods exposed to freezing-thawing and outdoor environments. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 14, 2812–2831. [CrossRef]
11. Xian, G.; Guo, R.; Li, C. Combined effects of sustained bending loading, water immersion and fiber hybrid mode on the
mechanical properties of carbon/glass fiber reinforced polymer composite. Compos. Struct. 2022, 281, 115060. [CrossRef]
12. Fattahi, A.M.; Mondali, M. Theoretical study of stress transfer in platelet reinforced composites. J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 2014, 52,
3–14.
13. Fattahi, A.M.; Moaddab, E.; Bibishahrbanoei, N. Thermo-mechanical stress analysis in platelet reinforced composites with bonded
and debonded platelet end. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2015, 29, 2067–2072. [CrossRef]
14. International Federation for Structural Concrete. FIB Bulletin 10: Bond. of Reinforcement in Concrete; CEB-FIB: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2000.
15. American Concrete Institute Committee 408. ACI 408R-03: Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension; American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2003.
16. Thamrin, R. Effect of end anchorage length and stirrup ratio on bond and shear capacity of concrete beams with nonmetallic
reinforcement. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2016, 11, 768–787.
17. Tighiouart, B.; Benmokrane, B.; Mukhopadhyaya, P. Bond strength of glass FRP rebar splices in beams under static loading.
Constr. Build Mater. 1999, 13, 383–392. [CrossRef]
18. Di, B.; Wang, J.; Li, H.; Zheng, J.; Zheng, Y.; Song, G. Investigation of bonding behavior of FRP and steel bars in self-compacting
concrete structures using acoustic emission method. Sensors 2019, 19, 159. [CrossRef]
19. Vint, L. Investigation of Bond Properties of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars in Concrete under Direct Tension.
Master’s Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2012.
20. Li, W.; Zhou, M.; Liu, F.; Jiao, Y.; Wu, Q. Experimental study on the bond performance between fiber-reinforced polymer bar and
unsaturated polyester resin concrete. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6676494. [CrossRef]
21. Achillides, Z.; Pilakoutas, K. Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars under direct pullout conditions. J. Compos. Constr.
2004, 8, 173–181. [CrossRef]
22. Bi, Q.; Wang, H. Bond strength of BFRP bars to basalt fiber reinforced high-strength concrete. In Advances in FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, CICE, Beijing, China, 27–29 September
2010; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.
23. Bi, Q.W.; Wang, Q.X.; Wang, H. Study on bond properties of BFRP bars to basalt fiber reinforced concrete. Adv. Mater. Res. 2010,
163–167, 1251–1256. [CrossRef]
24. Nepomuceno, E.; Sena-Cruz, J.; Correia, L.; D’Antino, T. Review on the bond behavior and durability of FRP bars to concrete.
Constr. Build Mater. 2021, 287, 123042. [CrossRef]
25. Hossain, K.M.A. Bond strength of GFRP bars embedded in engineered cementitious composite using RILEM beam testing. Int. J.
Concr. Struct. Mater. 2018, 12, 6. [CrossRef]
26. Al-Khafaji, A.F.; Myers, J.J.; Alghazali, H.H. Evaluation of bond performance of glass fiber rebars embedded in sustainable
concrete. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 282, 124516. [CrossRef]
27. Huang, L.; Chen, J.; Qu, J.; Dai, Q. Modeling for bond-constitutive relationships of FRP rebars to concrete matrix. Constr. Build
Mater. 2020, 263, 120654. [CrossRef]
28. Rolland, A.; Quiertant, M.; Khadour, A.; Chataigner, S.; Benzarti, K.; Argoul, P. Experimental investigations on the bond behavior
between concrete and FRP reinforcing bars. Constr. Build Mater. 2018, 173, 136–148. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, L.; Song, Z.; Yi, J.; Li, J.; Fu, F.; Qian, K. Experimental studies on bond performance of BFRP bars reinforced coral aggregate
concrete. Int. J. Concr. Struct Mater. 2019, 13, 52. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 27 of 29

30. Yang, S.; Yang, C.; Huang, M.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, J.; Fan, G. Study on bond performance between FRP bars and seawater coral
aggregate concrete. Constr. Build Mater. 2018, 173, 272–288. [CrossRef]
31. Xiong, Z.; Wei, W.; Liu, F.; Cui, C.; Li, L.; Zou, R.; Zeng, Y. Bond behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete with basalt fibre-
reinforced polymer bars. Compos. Struct. 2021, 256, 113078. [CrossRef]
32. Wei, W.; Liu, F.; Xiong, Z.; Lu, Z.; Li, L. Bond performance between fibre-reinforced polymer bars and concrete under pull-out
tests. Constr. Build Mater. 2019, 227, 116803. [CrossRef]
33. Zhao, D.; Zhou, Y.; Xing, F.; Sui, L.; Ye, Z.; Fu, H. Bond behavior and failure mechanism of fiber-reinforced polymer bar–engineered
cementitious composite interface. Eng. Struct. 2021, 243, 112520. [CrossRef]
34. Shen, D.; Ojha, B.; Shi, X.; Zhang, H.; Shen, J. Bond stress–slip relationship between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer bars and
concrete using a pull-out test. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2016, 35, 747–763. [CrossRef]
35. Basaran, B.; Kalkan, I. Investigation on variables affecting bond strength between FRP reinforcing bar and concrete by modified
hinged beam tests. Compos. Struct. 2020, 242, 112185. [CrossRef]
36. Solyom, S.; Balázs, G.L. Bond of FRP bars with different surface characteristics. Constr. Build Mater. 2020, 264, 119839. [CrossRef]
37. Thakur, M.S.; Pandhiani, S.M.; Kashyap, V.; Upadhya, A.; Sihag, P. Predicting bond strength of FRP bars in concrete using soft
computing techniques. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 46, 4951–4969. [CrossRef]
38. Yan, F.; Lin, Z.; Yang, M. Bond mechanism and bond strength of GFRP bars to concrete: A review. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 98,
56–69. [CrossRef]
39. Nakayama, Y.; Nakai, H.; Kanakubo, T. Bond behavior between deformed aramid fiber-reinforced plastic reinforcement and
concrete. In Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008.
40. Fan, X.; Zhang, M. Experimental study on flexural behaviour of inorganic polymer concrete beams reinforced with basalt rebar.
Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 93, 174–183. [CrossRef]
41. Calvet, V.; Valcuende, M.; Benlloch, J.; Cánoves, J. Influence of moderate temperatures on the bond between carbon fibre
reinforced polymer bars (CFRP) and concrete. Constr. Build Mater. 2015, 94, 589–604. [CrossRef]
42. Mazaheripour, H.; Barros, J.A.O.; Sena-Cruz, J.M.; Pepe, M.; Martinelli, E. Experimental study on bond performance of GFRP
bars in self-compacting steel fiber reinforced concrete. Compos. Struct. 2013, 95, 202–212. [CrossRef]
43. American Concrete Institute Committee 440. 39. ACI 440R-96: State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2002.
44. Rahman, S.K.; Al-Ameri, R. Experimental investigation and artificial neural network- based prediction of bond strength in
self-compacting geopolymer concrete reinforced with basalt FRP bars. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4889. [CrossRef]
45. Sun, W.; Zheng, Y.; Zhou, L.; Song, J.; Bai, Y. A study of the bond behavior of FRP bars in MPC seawater concrete. Adv. Struct.
Eng. 2021, 24, 1110–1123. [CrossRef]
46. Zemour, N.; Asadian, A.; Ahmed, E.A.; Khayat, K.H.; Benmokrane, B. Experimental study on the bond behavior of GFRP bars in
normal and self-consolidating concrete. Constr. Build Mater. 2018, 189, 869–881. [CrossRef]
47. Lee, Y.H.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, H.; Lee, J.; Kim, D.J. Experimental study on bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in normal
strength concrete. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2013, 27, 508–522. [CrossRef]
48. Okelo, R.; Yuan, R.L. Bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in normal strength concrete. J. Compos. Constr. 2005, 9,
203–213. [CrossRef]
49. Köroğlu, M.A. Artificial neural network for predicting the flexural bond strength of FRP bars in concrete. Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater.
2019, 26, 12–29. [CrossRef]
50. Mosley, C.P.; Tureyen, A.K.; Frosch, R.J. Bond strength of nonmetallic reinforcing bars. ACI Struct. J. 2008, 105, 634–642. [CrossRef]
51. El Refai, A.; Ammar, M.A.; Masmoudi, R. Bond performance of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer bars to concrete. J. Compos. Constr.
2015, 19, 04014050. [CrossRef]
52. Fava, G.; Carvelli, V.; Pisani, M.A. Remarks on bond of GFRP rebars and concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 93, 210–220.
[CrossRef]
53. Kanakubo, T.; Yonemaru, K.; Fukuyama, H.; Fujisawa, M.; Sonobe, Y. Bond performance of concrete members reinforced with
FRP bars. ACI Spec. Publ. 1993, 138, 767–788. [CrossRef]
54. He, Z.; Tian, G.W. Probabilistic evaluation of the design development length of a GFRP rod pull-out from concrete. Eng. Struct.
2011, 33, 2943–2952. [CrossRef]
55. Hossain, K.M.A.; Ametrano, D.; Lachemi, M. Bond strength of standard and high-modulus GFRP bars in high-strength concrete.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26, 449–456. [CrossRef]
56. Hossain, K.M.A.; Ametrano, D.; Lachemi, M. Bond strength of GFRP bars in ultra-high strength concrete using RILEM beam tests.
J. Build Eng. 2017, 10, 69–79. [CrossRef]
57. Arias, J.P.M.; Vazquez, A.; Escobar, M.M. Use of sand coating to improve bonding between GFRP bars and concrete. J. Compos.
Mater. 2012, 46, 2271–2278. [CrossRef]
58. Solyom, S.; Balázs, G.L. Analytical and statistical study of the bond of FRP bars with different surface characteristics. Compos.
Struct. 2021, 270, 113953. [CrossRef]
59. Eladawy, M.; Chen, W.; Benmokrane, B. Effect of bond strength of newly developed glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars on the
load-slip performance. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
Structures, Montreal, QC, Canada, 18–20 August 2021.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 28 of 29

60. Zhang, P.; Zhang, S.; Gao, D.; Dong, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, J.; Sheikh, S.A. Influence of rib parameters on mechanical properties and
bond behavior in concrete of fiber-reinforced polymer rebar. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2021, 24, 196–208. [CrossRef]
61. Baena, M.; Torres, L.; Turon, A.; Barris, C. Experimental study of bond behaviour between concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out
test. Compos. Part B Eng. 2009, 40, 784–797. [CrossRef]
62. Hao, Q.; Wang, Y.; He, Z.; Ou, J. Bond strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer ribbed rebars in normal strength concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 865–871. [CrossRef]
63. Ametrano, D. Bond Characteristics of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Bars Embedded in High Performance and Ultra-High-
Performance Concrete. Master’s Thesis, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011.
64. Michaud, D.; Fam, A.; Dagenais, M.A. Development length of sand-coated GFRP bars embedded in Ultra-High performance
concrete with very small cover. Constr. Build Mater. 2021, 270, 121384. [CrossRef]
65. Ehsani, M.R.; Saadatmanesh, H.; Tao, S. Bond behavior of deformed GFRP rebars. J. Compos. Mater. 1997, 31, 1413–1430.
[CrossRef]
66. Krem, S.; Soudki, K. Development Length of Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars in Self-Consolidating Concrete; Book Series 1 (275);
RILEM: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 379–391. [CrossRef]
67. Thompson, M.K.; Jirsa, J.O.; Breen, J.E.; Klingner, R.E. Anchorage Behavior of Headed Reinforcement: Literature Review (Report No.
FHWA/TX-0-1855-1); Texas Department of Transportation: Austin, TX, USA, 2002.
68. Wambeke, B.W.; Shield, C.K. Development length of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars in concrete. ACI Struct. J. 2006, 103,
11–17.
69. Islam, S.; Afefy, H.M.; Sennah, K.; Azimi, H. Bond characteristics of straight- and headed-end, ribbed-surface, GFRP bars
embedded in high-strength concrete. Constr. Build Mater. 2015, 83, 283–298. [CrossRef]
70. Akbas, T.T.; Celik, O.C.; Yalcin, C. Experimental bond behaviour of deformed CRRP rebars in high strength concrete. In
Proceedings of the FIB Symposium, Concrete-Innovation and Design, Copenhagen, Denmark, 18–20 May 2015; pp. 1–9.
71. Veljkovic, A.; Carvelli, V.; Haffke, M.M.; Pahn, M. Concrete cover effect on the bond of GFRP bar and concrete under static
loading. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 124, 40–53. [CrossRef]
72. Alves, J.; El-Ragaby, A.; El-Salakawy, E. Durability of GFRP bars bond to concrete under different loading and environmental
conditions. J. Compos. Constr. 2011, 15, 249–262. [CrossRef]
73. Basaran, B.; Kalkan, I. Comparison of different FRP reinforcement-concrete bond test methods according to parameters affecting
this bond. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi. Univ. 2021, 36, 1581–1593. [CrossRef]
74. Quayyum, S. Bond Behaviour of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Rebars in Concrete. Master’s Thesis, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010.
75. Jiang, S.Y.; Ye, Y.; Fei, W. Experiment on the bonding performance of BFRP bars reinforced concrete. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012,
174–177, 993–998. [CrossRef]
76. Xue, W.; Zheng, Q.; Yang, Y.; Fang, Z. Bond behavior of sand-coated deformed glass fiber reinforced polymer rebars. J. Reinf.
Plast. Compos. 2014, 33, 895–910. [CrossRef]
77. Yu, N.H.; Fan, J.J. Experimental study of bond stress between concrete and FRP rebars. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 488–489, 774–777.
[CrossRef]
78. Sayed, A.F.; Foret, G.; Le Roy, R. Bond between carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars and ultra-high-performance fibre
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Experimental study. Constr. Build Mater. 2011, 25, 479–485. [CrossRef]
79. Trabacchin, G.; Sebastian, W.; Zhang, M. Experimental and analytical study of bond between basalt FRP bars and geopolymer
concrete. Constr. Build Mater. 2022, 315, 125461. [CrossRef]
80. Seis, M.; Beycioğlu, A. Bond performance of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer bars in conventional Portland cement concrete: A
relative comparison with steel rebar using the hinged beam approach. Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater. 2017, 24, 909–918. [CrossRef]
81. Tighiouart, B.; Benmokrane, B.; Gao, D. Investigation of bond in concrete member with fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) bars.
Constr. Build Mater. 1998, 12, 453–462. [CrossRef]
82. Park, J.S.; Lim, A.R.; Kim, J.; Lee, J.Y. Bond performance of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in different casting positions. Polym.
Compos. 2016, 37, 2098–2108. [CrossRef]
83. Hossain, K.M.A.; Lachemi, M. Bond behavior of self-consolidating concrete with mineral and chemical admixtures. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2008, 20, 608–616. [CrossRef]
84. Harajli, M.; Abouniaj, M. Bond performance of GFRP bars in tension: Experimental evaluation and assessment of ACI 440 guide-
lines. J. Compos. Constr. 2010, 14, 659–668. [CrossRef]
85. Golafshani, E.M.; Rahai, A.; Sebt, M.H. Artificial neural network and genetic programming for predicting the bond strength of
GFRP bars in concrete. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 1581–1602. [CrossRef]
86. Quayyum, S.; Rteil, A. Bond strength of FRP rebar to concrete: Effect of concrete confinement. In Proceedings of the
5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2010), Beijing, China, 27–29 September 2010;
pp. 581–584.
87. Mehr, M.R.; Esfahani, M.R.; Mousavi, S.R. A modification to ACI 440.1R-06 equation for determining the bond strength of GFRP
bars using reliability analysis. Amirkabir. J. Sci. Res. Civil. Environ. Eng. AJSR CEE 2013, 45, 25–28. [CrossRef]
88. Lee, J.Y.; Kim, T.Y.; Kim, T.J.; Yi, C.K.; Park, J.S.; You, Y.C.; Park, Y.H. Interfacial bond strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer
bars in high-strength concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2008, 39, 258–270. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 1796 29 of 29

89. Borosnyói, A. Influence of service temperature and strain rate on the bond performance of CFRP reinforcement in concrete.
Compos. Struct. 2015, 127, 18–27. [CrossRef]
90. Godat, A.; Aldaweela, S.; Aljaberi, H.; Al Tamimi, N.; Alghafri, E. Bond strength of FRP bars in recycled-aggregate concrete.
Constr. Build Mater. 2021, 267, 10919. [CrossRef]
91. Okelo, R. Realistic bond strength of FRP rebars in NSC from beam specimens. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2007, 20, 133–140. [CrossRef]
92. Erdem, S.; Kağnıcı, T.; Blankson, M.A. Investigation of bond between fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composites rebar and aramid
fibre-reinforced concrete. Int. J. Compos. Mater. 2015, 5, 148–154. [CrossRef]
93. Park, C.; Won, J.; Cha, S. Bond properties of CFRP rebar in fiber reinforced high strength concrete with surface treatment methods
of reinforcing fibers. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2009, 21, 275–282. [CrossRef]
94. Kang, J.; Kim, B.; Park, J.; Lee, J. Influence evaluation of fiber on the bond behavior of GFRP bars embedded in fiber reinforced
concrete. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2012, 24, 79–86. [CrossRef]
95. Won, J.P.; Park, C.G.; Kim, H.H.; Lee, S.W.; Won, C. Bond behaviour of FRP reinforcing bars in high-strength steel fibre-reinforced
concrete. Polym. Polym. Compos. 2007, 15, 569–578. [CrossRef]
96. Xiong, Z.; Zeng, Y.; Li, L.G.; Kwan, A.K.H.; He, S.H. Experimental study on the effects of glass fibres and expansive agent on the
bond behaviour of glass/basalt FRP bars in seawater sea-sand concrete. Constr. Build Mater. 2021, 274, 122100. [CrossRef]
97. Kim, B.; Doh, J.H.; Yi, C.K.; Lee, J.Y. Effects of structural fibers on bonding mechanism changes in interface between GFRP bar
and concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 45, 768–779. [CrossRef]
98. Golafshani, E.M.; Rahai, A.; Sebt, M.H. Bond behavior of steel and GFRP bars in self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build Mater.
2014, 61, 230–240. [CrossRef]
99. Empelmann, M.; Oettel, V.; Javidmehr, S.; Wichert, M. Bond behaviour of embedded FRP rebars in HPC and UHPC. In Proceedings
of the 5th International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Concrete and High Performance Construction Materials, Kassel,
Switzerland, 11–13 March 2020; pp. 67–68.
100. Wu, C.; Meng, B.C.; Cheng, X.; Korayem, A.H.; Tam, L.H. Bond behavior between BFRP rebar and seawater sea sand concrete.
Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 8850809. [CrossRef]